I only became a Maranao 9 years ago. 

I come from a Maranao family. Both of my parents and most of our relatives are from Lanao del Sur, the land of the Maranaos. All 4 of my siblings were born in Ganassi, Lanao del Sur. I, on the other hand, was born in Isulan, Sultan Kudarat.

Although I come from a Maranao family, I knew little about being a Maranao when I was younger. 

Being born and raised in a Christian-majority area, 240 kilometers away from Lanao del Sur, I knew very little about my tribe. I can barely speak our native language. Growing up, whenever we visit our relatives in Lanao, I always feel different. 

My parents noticed. So right after high school, they sent me to Marawi City in 2008 where I lived the next 7 years of my life. There, I finished my degree in Communication Studies at Mindanao State University – Main Campus and worked as a college instructor in a private school immediately after college.

In those years, I  developed a love and hate relationship with the city and its people.

‘Hated it’ 

Studying in MSU-Marawi meant survival. I hated most of it.

I hated how the enrollment process in the university can be a torture. I hated the long queues, hike from one building to another,  uncooperative weather, and the school administration's poor internet connection. 

I hated how students can never feel safe inside the campus. Worse, that students get used to not feeling safe that they begin to not mind it anymore.

I remember one time in my junior year when we heard gunshots during our Filipino class. Everyone paused for a moment. Fireworks! One of my classmates shouted. Everyone laughed. 

Then, we continued on with the class like nothing happened. 

Living in Marawi City is no different. It also meant survival and I hated most of it as well. 

I started working in a private school just outside of MSU-Marawi Campus immediately after college. For some reason, despite my eagerness to get out of the city, I chose to stay and work there. For two years, I have discovered new things to loathe about.

I hated the traffic. I thought traffic never happens to cities like Marawi, but I thought wrong. There are a lot of families living in Marawi City who can easily afford and own more than one car. That wouldn’t be a problem if roads are wide, parking spaces are enough, road signs are installed, and drivers are disciplined. 

I hated how dirty the city is. Garbage is scattered in almost every corner of the city. When it is clean, it still smells dirty. People living beside the Lake Lanao have contributed to the problem as well. They have thrown too much garbage into the lake that it started polluting its waters. I hated how people seem to be very complacent about it – they don’t see how the pollution can affect them.

Living in Marawi has been a constant battle of asking myself of whether or not I should stay or leave. One day, you feel like you are doing the right thing and that you are where you should be. Then, there are those days when you just want to get out of that mess. I finally did in 2014. 

I, however, will forever be grateful for what the city has made me become.   

Falling in love with Marawi 

Marawi City is such a beautiful place. It is a city inhabited by more than 200,000 people who enjoy being surrounded by lush mountains, a majestic view of the Lake Lanao, and cool weather all throughout the year. With its elevation at around 2,300 feet, the place, when covered in thick fog, resembles the atmosphere you get in Baguio City. 

Despite its imperfections it’s hard not to fall in love with the city. I did. In those 7 years that I lived in Marawi City, I slowly became the person my parents wanted me to be when they decided to bring me here. I learned a lot of things about being a Maranao. 

The term Maranao translates to ‘People of the Lake’. Lake Lanao played an important role in the lives of our ancestors who were natives living around it. Although Maranao communities can be found everywhere in the country today, most still live in Lanao del Norte and Lanao del Sur. We are one of the largest Muslim groups in the country.

But Maranaos are not only defined by their number and where they come from – that we are not defined merely by the things that I loathe about Marawi City.

I learned why Maranaos are some of the brightest people you will ever meet. It is not because they can afford expensive things and are graduates of expensive schools, but because they know how to co-exist with other people. Maranaos value the importance of diversity and why it is important to respect other people’s background. 

Marawi City might be an Islamic city but it is also home to thousands of Christians and people of other religious beliefs. It is a place where discourse of different ideas happen. It is a place where political dynasties are challenged. It is a place where democracy is practiced and felt.

I learned why Maranaos always have the grandest celebrations. It is not because they just want to brag about their wealth or prove something, but because Maranaos deeply value their strong family ties. Weddings, birthdays, graduation, even the ‘kanduri’ of someone passing a licensure examination are not only celebrations but opportunities for family reunions as well.

Maranao families are probably the largest extended families you will know. Households are usually composed of 5-10 or more members. Family relations are sometimes even based on one’s hometown. When you meet someone from Ganassi, Lanao del Sur, you will automatically assume you are related. 

The vibrant culture of the Maranaos is very apparent in our food, artwork pieces, brass and gold ornaments, traditional songs and dances, attires, and literature. We are a proud tribe and we have many reasons to be proud of our identity.  (READ: Marawi: Images from a ghost town)

To be a Maranao

Growing up, I never knew any of this. Maranaos are barely mentioned in our textbooks. My siblings and I were the only Maranaos in our school and we only get to interact with the other Maranaos in our place during Muslim holidays when we go to the mosque. We also only get to visit our relatives in Lanao once or twice in a year. I grew up not entirely knowing where my roots are. 

Becoming Maranao for me was more than having Maranao parents and being raised in a Maranao family. It was an experience that started 9 years ago. It was about surviving Mindanao State University. It was about learning how to eat ‘palapa’ even if I didn’t really like spicy food. It was about becoming more fluent in Maranao language and getting used to the accent that comes with it. It was about getting assimilated with my own people. 

Becoming Maranao for me was also about embracing its imperfections but believing that certain things can still change. That Marawi City can be a better place where Maranaos and other people can truly live harmoniously in peace. 

The ongoing Marawi crisis has taught me another thing about my tribe – that we can also be resilient in times of adversities. This is probably the first time that Maranaos faced a challenge as big and as serious as this – moreso that is happening during the holy month of Ramadan. However, as unfortunate as the past 3 weeks have been for the victims and the evacuees, I believe that the Maranaos and the people of Marawi are only being tested.

This might be an unfamiliar situation for most of us, but I know Maranaos and the people of Marawi are more than capable of surpassing this. (READ: Marawi under siege: It's like 'looking at Aleppo')

To my fellow Maranaos, we have to remind ourselves of who we are, of our roots, of our identity. We have to remind ourselves of what made us become some of the most successful Muslims in this country. 

Nine years ago, I finally understood what being a Maranao is all about. Today, I realize that the process of becoming one never ends. – Rappler.com 

Nizam M. Pabil, 25, is a government employee and a Maranao

One of the things my colleagues in the Philippines have taught me is the word bayanihan, which stands for solidarity and bearing one another’s load. As we witness the worst humanitarian crisis of our generation, where conflict and violence force thousands of families every day to flee their homes, it is this spirit of togetherness that is needed across the world today.

Throughout my two decades with the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees, the UN Refugee Agency, I had the chance to witness acts of generosity and compassion by ordinary people, my colleagues, and even among displaced communities themselves after losing everything.

Perhaps this is what makes humanitarian work worthwhile; it reminds us that at the end of the day, we are all bound by our common humanity despite our differences.   

From the classroom to the front lines of conflict

I was teaching law in 1997 when I got an invitation to serve with UNHCR in Mauritania. I had very little knowledge of humanitarian work at the time, and transferring to a different country seemed daunting. 

But maybe the call to serve was stronger.

Back in 1999, we were confronted with a tense situation where a village in the south of Mauritania was surrounded by the armed forces. In the middle of the desert, the community was prevented from returning to their village and were exposed to the elements. Urgent action was needed to address mounting vulnerabilities. 

Six months later, through the intervention of UNHCR, this seemingly impenetrable village was teeming with life. The community supported each other, started cultivating their own food, and become self-reliant. It was a sharp contrast from what it was half a year before.

At the heart of UNHCR’s work is providing protection to refugees—a field I have been involved in since my assignment to Mauritania two decades ago.  I also have had the privilege of training UNHCR’s humanitarian workers, NGOs, and government officials worldwide who provide protection to families in conflict and emergency hotspots.  

Protection encompasses all the activities we can carry out to uphold and safeguard the right of refugees: It can mean helping asylum-seekers find safety, seeking release from detention, helping refugees obtain identification, or access to jobs. It can mean advocating for better laws with governments. 

Protection can also mean ensuring that life-saving assistance in handed in a way that is gender-sensitive and respects diversity.

Protection is more relevant today as the number of displaced persons continues to rise.

The worst humanitarian crisis of our time

2016 saw the highest level of forced displacement ever recorded, according to a new report UNHCR released today, June 19. 

The report, which surveyed the state of global forced displacement, showed that the number of displaced persons was at 65.6 million as of the end of last year. This is 300,000 higher than the previous year—a result of protracted fighting and disruption in peace efforts in long-standing conflicts.  

New displacement remains at very high levels, too. In 2016, 10.3 million people were newly displaced.

This is equivalent to one person becoming displaced every 3 seconds.

This means that by the time you finish reading this sentence, someone will have been displaced. 

One of the primary drivers of global displacement is the war in Syria which has raged on for more than six years. More than 11 million have fled their homes, 5 million of whom live in refugee camps in neighboring countries. More than 2 million have perished, 24,000 of whom are children.

The cost of the Syrian war will reverberate for generations. Displaced children have limited access to quality education, and it is estimated that 24.5 million years of education have been lost.

Behind the numbers                                      

What humanitarian work teaches us every day is to look beyond the numbers and see that refugees and displaced persons are real people like you and me, with their own dreams, fears, and hopes. We also see that in communities and nations where peace remains elusive, civilians are the ones who pay the biggest price and bear the disproportionate burden of suffering caused by war and violence. 

These are mothers and fathers, sons and daughters who have abandoned everything they have—oftentimes with nothing but the clothes on their back. These are families with the most modest of resources who have lost their homes, their work, and sometimes their relatives.

Yet on the front lines of conflict, and in the fog of war, my colleagues and I continue to witness the courage and resilience of these families who have been forced to flee home. They don’t give up, and they find a way to start again. They find a way to fight despair, strive to belong, and become contributors to communities they are part of. 

We have also stood witness to the immense generosity of many individuals, families, villages, towns, cities, and nations we have worked with. It is also important to note that the vast majority of the world’s refugees are hosted in the poorest countries, and we must do all we can to support them. 

Tomorrow, as we mark World Refugee Day, we honor the courage and resilience of families forced to flee conflict or persecution. We also honor the spirit of inclusion and generosity demonstrated by those who may not have a lot, but have much to give. 

The world can no longer be passive while thousands continue to drown in the Mediterranean, while children are uprooted from their schools, while women and girls risk abuse and gender-based violence because of their displacement, and while families continue to be torn apart in their search for safety. 

The Filipino and the bayanihan spirit

Every day at UNHCR, we encounter people who give us a stark reality check. Some would ask, “As ordinary citizens, we cannot stop war or deeply-rooted protracted conflicts. Is there anything we can do to help?”

The gravity of the situation makes one person seem powerless. It is easy to leave the solution to those who have access to power levers, or those in boardrooms deciding the size of grants to be given.  

But this is very far from the truth; we must not let the staggering level of displacement paralyze us from taking action.  

Where is the Filipino amidst all of this?

Filipinos are no stranger to being a source of an outpouring of generosity for families on the run from persecution and death. 

Long before we could alter our profile photos or post a hashtag expressing solidarity with victims of violence, Filipinos have long embodied the spirit of bayanihan and have personified generosity, on a global scale. 

When other nations shut their eyes and closed their doors, the Philippines sometimes would be the only country to welcome refugees. “You can come here. You are welcome. We will share the burden with you. We will not shut our doors on you,” Filipinos and their leaders would say.

In the 1920s, long before the country had formal immigration policies, the Philippines had welcomed activists fleeing political persecution in Russia. Almost two decades later, in one of the darkest times in modern history, the Philippines provided refuge to 1,200 Jews escaping the rise of Nazism in Europe. (IN PHOTOS: The life of White Russian refugees in the Philippines)

In the Philippines’ modern history, there have been nine waves of providing humanitarian support for refugees from Russia, Spain, Iran, Vietnam, China, and East Timor.  

Recently the Philippines, through President Rodrigo Duterte, donated US$300,000 to provide humanitarian assistance to the Rohingya, the marginalized and persecuted boat people of Myanmar.

Indeed, the Filipino is strongly rooted in its rich history of providing humanitarian support. (TIMELINE: Philippine laws and policies on refugees)

I have served with UNHCR in many countries, each with their own protection needs. What makes Filipinos special is that they seem to naturally and intuitively understand and empathize with people who have been uprooted from their homes by war, conflict, violence, persecution, and calamities. 

In my three years here, I have noted that Filipinos—the man on the street, in government, in the military, in courts, in businesses—are some of the most compassionate people whose actions for the vulnerable and the displaced go beyond the bare minimum. 

At a time when expressions of solidarity are becoming rare, at a time when inward-looking, security-focused policies become dominant, Filipinos remain a beacon of hope and humanitarian spirit.

World Refugee Day is our opportunity to remember that there are now more people displaced by conflict or persecution than any time since World War II. Never has the need for solidarity to stand with refugees been greater than today. 

For Filipinos, World Refugee Day is also an opportunity to recall how past generations have demonstrated generosity to the most vulnerable peoples when it counted the most.

As UN High Commissioner for Refugees Filippo Grandi would say, “when we stand together with refugees, we also stand for respect and diversity for all.“

World Refugee Day is our opportunity to ask ourselves: “What can we do through simple actions to help build better futures for displaced families? What can we do to promote a spirit of inclusion and bayanihan?” – Rappler.com

UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency, encourages Filipinos to stand in solidarity #WithRefugees and with families torn apart by war, conflict and violence. To learn more how you can help, please visit: http://donate.unhcr.ph/refugees.

Yasser Saad is the head of the Philippine office of UNHCR, having served with the UN Refugee Agency for 20 years. He has both Egyptian and French nationalities, and holds a Master's Degree in Public International Law from the University of Paris. Following a short stint as a lecturer for law students, he started his career as a humanitarian worker in Mauritania in 1997. He covered emergencies in Yemen, Iraq, and Tunisia. He was also posted in Geneva, Bangkok, and Algeria before being assigned to the Philippines.  

So she was clobbered online after suggesting to ban unlimited rice because, she said, it’s bad for our health.

Let’s get one thing straight: Senator Cynthia Villar meant well. She may have said something most of us didn’t want to hear, but she didn’t say anything that isn’t true. Anything in excess is bad. Adding vegetables to our diet makes us healthier. “’Pagbawal na natin ’yang unlimited rice kasi nagkakasakit tayo gawa ng unlimited rice na ’yan; we should learn how to eat vegetables.”

Her remarks at a Senate food committee hearing should have sparked much-needed conversations about nutrition and food security at a time when we’re hooked on war, drugs, and a disappearing president. But, no, we chose to make memes out of the statement and say in so many words, how dare she!

The sad truth is, our national staple – polished and milled to perfection – gives us a false sense of nourishment. The Philippines’ increasing rice consumption indicates an imbalance diet and reliance on carbohydrates, which is what the dominant type of imported rice in the market mostly has.

The sadder truth, however, is that Filipinos have no choice but to eat it. Most Filipinos spend on rice more than on any other food, and that is primarily because it is what is readily accessible and affordable, especially among poor communities. Wealthier countries have more diverse diets.

It is thus unrealistic for public officials to expect Filipinos to expand their diet when they have nothing else – except government-supplied rice – to begin with.

But is it too much to expect big private companies to do their bit of public health responsibility here and rethink the sugar that they are serving unlimited to a nation that has more people taking long lines in hospitals than in public markets?

And for better measure, can we not extend this call to other giant companies that have snatched farmlands to convert them into huge subdivisions, such as what the Villars have been doing over the years? While the Philippines is one of the biggest rice consumers in the world, it is a fact that it also is one of the smallest rice producers, no thanks to the invasion of unbridled commerce.

Thus the unli rice controversy shouldn’t just stop in the hashtags that trended because of it. 

It is all about opening up all possibilities of discourse, conversations, and policy debates: preservation of agricultural lands that are planted not just to rice but to other food crops; support for existing research initiatives on more nutritious rice varieties; active promotion of and government support for healthy but still affordable diets; public awareness of how affordable junk is competing with affordable rice in consumption; and, ultimately, improving family incomes. – Rappler.com

Since the fall of the dictator, anti-authoritarian fears have always revolved around the threat of a new Marcos. In the late 1990s, when then-President Fidel Ramos attempted to amend the Constitution to allow him to seek a second term ostensibly, anti-Marcos forces led by former President Cory Aquino blocked him, declaring they would “never again” allow the law to be manipulated. In the early 2000s, when President Joseph Estrada was surrounding himself with a coterie of cronies, commentators once again warned about the “ghost of Marcos.” Finally, Gloria Arroyo, who placed the Philippines under a “state of rebellion” to dampen protests against her and who aimed to build a centralized “strong republic,” was similarly tainted with a Marcosian brush.

Rodrigo Duterte has reversed all these, making the notion of a strong leader in vogue again, beginning with a revisionist interpretation of Ferdinand Marcos. Duterte boasts how much he owed his election success to the Marcos family and he would reciprocate by getting the cadaver of the dictator moved from Paoay to the Libingan ng mga Bayani.

The returns to this friendship had been a boon to the Marcoses. Bongbong’s influence over national politics has never been more pronounced, with him having the President’s ear and a throng of pro-dictatorship “trolls” at his disposal to spread historically revisionist material about the “golden era” of martial law. 

But the relationship is more than just patronage-driven. Duterte has a deep admiration for Marcos’ strong-arm tactics and the late dictator’s capacity to justify these on legal-constitutional grounds. He used deadly force (the Davao Death Squad, DDS) to achieve results, but he would also repeatedly remind us that he did this as someone familiar with the law (him being a prosecutor). He was strongman and disciplinarian yet also a constitutionalist – the 21st-century version of his pin-up Ferdinand Marcos. No post-authoritarian president has publicly mused about the declaration of martial law as much as Duterte.

His actions since assuming office appeared taken from Marcos’ playbook. He gave the Philippine National Police (PNP) carte blanche to go after and kill drug lords, pushers, and addicts. He vowed to kill a million users if need be, in the same way Adolf Hitler killed millions of Jews. Duterte promised the police that he would protect them even from legal action, and police doubled up in their campaign with the poor as their prime targets.

The majority of those killed “were not drug lords, but either small-time dealers selling shabu (as methamphetamine is known locally) to raise themselves out of poverty, or light drug users who would occasionally scrape together enough money to buy a sachet of shabu to escape the misery of Manila’s shanty towns.” Police and paid assassins have raided urban poor communities, executing “defiant” addicts or pushers, but when it came to attacking the Golden Ghettos of Manila and middle class “subdivisions,” the police has deferred to leaders of these plush residential areas. No drugs had been “discovered,” no suspected addicts arrested or killed.

Duterte admitted a partiality toward the wealthy, but insisted, “given that the poor outnumber the rich, the campaign could not afford to spare the underprivileged from arrests.” He blamed the rich for using their immense resources to thwart the police but also excused the rich, saying their addicts only consume “safe drugs” (cocaine, marijuana, heroine) and not shabu. 

The criticism of the extrajudicial killings, however, has hardly made a dent on the public mind. How then to explain this collective slide into ruthlessness? First, we have to understand the fact that these crimes are mainly community-level felonies. The overall statistics may suggest that the percentage of addicts to the general population is small. 

However, viewed from below, their presence on the streets of villages, towns, communities, and even cities show that the number of addicts appears to be increasing. Together with their drug pushers, they have maintained and expanded their networks and bring in new users. Communities feel helpless in preventing the spread of addiction for two reasons. The market for drugs is often the young in the village, the children that many a parent try to prevent from turning into addicts. This is a stable market for the networks because childlike curiosity and the pressures of poverty make the neighborhood teenagers easy to lure.

Second, even if people band together to force drug pushers and users out of their communities, their actions will be severely constrained by policemen and politicians in the drug lords' pockets, if not the drug lords themselves. Neither is the court system sympathetic. Trials are lengthy, and the moneyed drug lord could outspend complainants. Witnesses can be bribed, and, when necessary, threatened with death, while judges and prosecutors can be paid enough to slow down the proceedings. And we are not even talking about the appeals process yet. Duterte’s “if-you-deal-in-drugs-I-will-kill-you” approach cuts through this mishmash. It is simple, goes immediately for the jugular, eliminates the community threat with some finality, and considerably weakens the corrupted power of politicians and police. 

For residents of these blighted communities, already exposed for an extended duration to different types of violence, the assassination of addicts and pushers can easily be justified as either a part of everyday life or a further confirmation of the adage “what-goes-around-comes-around.” 83% of Filipinos believe that Duterte is up to the challenge. Hence, the considerable leeway granted these executions.

How much power will Duterte arrogate unto the presidency? How far will he be able to use the national version of the DDS to further his goals? Will he use these assassination teams to silence dissent nationwide? And will Duterte be able to fortify his praetorian guard with members of the military (a necessary measure for a young dictator given how inferior the police are to the military)? Duterte’s Marcosian project is work-in-progress, and it has not been articulated in as harsh a way as the dictator’s New Society. After a year of him in office, we see statist centralization moving forward, and strengthening unparalleled in the post-EDSA presidency. 

Congress has approved an increased allocation to the Office of President, from P2.87 billion ($61.44 million) in 2016 to P20.03 billion ($430.3 million) for 2017 – an increase of more than P17 billion, or about $370 million. Then when the Maute gang seized Marawi, he declared martial law. He now awaits other terrorist attacks to make that declaration cover the entire country. – Rappler.com 

Patricio N. Abinales is an OFW. He is a professor of Asian Studies at the University of Hawaii-Manoa. He wrote the book Making Mindanao: Cotabato and Davao in the Formation of the Philippine Nation-State (Ateneo, 2000).  

I am an anti-social person. An introvert. Not the life of the party. 

This would surprise some people who know that I can be quite gregarious.

But people shouldn’t take these character typologies seriously, especially when they have been simplified for amusement in pop psychology articles. Not all men are from Mars and not all women are from Venus. People can tick all the boxes about being an introvert or an extrovert. But many times we are mixtures of both or several types because we behave appropriately as the circumstances require. Therefore it is better to take these character typologies with a huge grain of salt. Stereotyping is one of the worst tendencies of human beings. Stereotyping can lead to discrimination, persecution and harm to those we stereotype.

Gregarious when willing

I am one of those people who can be out and sociable. I enjoy the company of good friends. Occasionally, I even enjoy big parties and crowds.

But after these periods of extroversion, I need to withdraw and have a good talk with myself in order to  process what being out in the world has taught me. It is also an important aspect of mental health that we know how to listen to our inner voice and enjoy solitude. Woe to the person who cannot take pleasure in individual enjoyments and pursuits. Pity those who cannot sit and be happy with themselves.

Which leads me to one of the biggest frustrations of my (not) social life. When I say "no" to an invitation I really don't have to give a truthful excuse. I don't even have to fabricate a seemingly truthful excuse. All I need to do is give a polite one.

Some people do not seem to understand that those they invite may not want to be with them for that particular occasion. The reasons should not  be of concern unless the person is self-absorbed or needy. In my case, as is the case of many people, I send my regrets because it is time for me to be alone.

But I am touched and honored whenever I am invited. Whether the occasion is simple or momentous, an invitation means that you are asking me to spend precious time with you. You want my company, and for that I will always be grateful. If you are the gracious person who you really are (not the egotistical  jerks who are the bane of my existence) you will doubtless go through a lot of trouble to ensure that, if I join you, I will enjoy myself. Because of this, you can rest assured that I will accept only if I can live up to the occasion. I will come on time, put my best foot forward so that you and your other guests will enjoy my company, and generally add to the good will and cheer.  I think people should have social events for the joy of simple human interaction. For me, this is the only reason to socialize.

If I cannot put my best foot forward because I am ill or harried or out-of-sorts with the world, then I should quite promptly say “no” and save you the expense and trouble of planning things with me in mind. It is also my sense of kindness to your other guests, who certainly should not have to put up with a grouch. I would not insult your invitation that way.

Dear reader, you can stereotype me on this matter: I don’t socialize in order to “be seen”. I don’t socialize to boost my career or exchange favors. In fact, when I find myself in social situations where I might possibly gain from the exchange, I become tongue-tied, off-tangent or offensive. When I hear people during Christmas tell me of the nth party they have been to and how weary they have become, I feel as if someone just threatened to terrorize me. Some sensitivity please! The thought of it makes me reach for my smelling salts.

Guests are not an audience

If this were clear to everyone who sent me an invitation, my social life (or the lack of it) would not be a source of stress. Unfortunately there are egotistical people in the world. These are the ones who extend invitations not because they want us to have a good time together but because they want to have a good time at my expense.

My most common complaint is against parties where I notice I am merely there as the audience. For example, I have sat in enough weddings where everyone is told to come thirty minutes or even an hour earlier than the bride so that she can make a grand entrance to a full chapel. Then we have to get to the reception where we are asked to wait again for for at least thirty minutes for the bride and groom to make a grand entry for the cameras. 

Call me a fussy old lady but waiting for you for an hour in a hot and noisy Church isn’t exactly my notion of you wanting to spend quality time with me. Call me lacking in social graces, or perhaps even arrogant, but I did not volunteer to be a member of your cast of hundreds. And those who work as cast members are paid far more than just being fed dinner at your reception, no matter how fancy that dinner may be.

I have been to weddings where the guests were almost as happy as the couple. (Sometimes I have no idea whether the person my friend or relative is marrying is any good, but if my loved one is happy this is all I need to know.) I love those types of weddings. They start on time, I gawk at the beautiful bride, I get carried away by the lovely music. I am ready to swoon when they finally exchange vows which mercifully comes within an hour. At the reception, I can join in the genuine merriment because it is a great pleasure to see happy people. I enjoy these events because the wedding is indeed a celebration of which I am part.

While I have chosen the topic of weddings, this holds for other occasions like proms or birthday celebrations or graduation parties or even small dinner parties. As an agnostic I have had my share of being invited to dinners where all they really wanted to do was convert me to their particular religion. (Gee, if I had known it would be that kind of dinner party, I would have brought my broom and black cat.)

A kind 'NO'

Sometimes it even holds true for the “spontaneous” night out. Imagine this dear reader: I am snug as a bug in a rug. I am in my jammies, in my lazy boy with a novel and a cup of tea. Suddenly someone calls and they want me to get dressed, get into my car, struggle with the traffic and have a few drinks? Ah..er..no thanks. I truly appreciate the invitation but I will not go. Not because I don’t love you but because I need to love myself more at this time.

Ordinarily, between convivial people, all that is needed is a simple excuse. A white lie. And the most common one is, “I regret that I cannot go because I have a previous engagement.” See how kind that is? It says, “You would be my absolute priority to be with now, but I already said yes to someone else. And please believe me that if your invitation had come earlier I would have accepted yours over the invitation sent by the Queen. You are more royal to me.”  This is kinder than, “I am in my jammies and prefer the company of Jane Austen tonight.”

So here’s the trick: when given an excuse which may be true or not, a good person would simply say, “That’s a pity. Perhaps next time.”

Yet how often have I heard people agonize as to what excuse to give.

Person agonizing: I really don’t want to go to that one. But what excuse should I give?

Me: Say you have a previous engagement.

Agonizer: But they know I don’t. I told them earlier I was free.

Me: Say you just said yes to someone five minutes ago.

Agonizer: But what if they ask who that is?

Me: Tell them the Queen invited you.

I am sure that last bit wasn’t helpful. Some people probably deserve it because they do have the temerity to ask who it is they were prioritized over. Pfft. Wrong. Do not take my polite excuses seriously and try to get around them. You make me suspect that you want to drag me out to your affair because you’re lacking a cast member for your big egotistical production.

You really want me to spend quality time with you? Then allow me to say “no” when I would rather not be with you. So that when I do say yes, I will be a wonderful addition to your party of two or two hundred. Otherwise I will be that tongue-tied, off-tangent and somewhat offensive jerk that everyone avoids. – Rappler.com

Historian and professor Dr. Lisandro “Leloy” Claudio talks about human rights and how it has evolved as an inalienable, fundamental right.

Is it a concept imposed on Filipinos by foreigners? What role does reading novels play in the evolution of human rights? – Rappler.com

In April, during a visit to the Armed Forces Western Command (WesCom) in Palawan, the province closest to the disputed islands, President Rodrigo Duterte was briefed on the contentious state of affairs in the South China Sea, including which islands and reefs were occupied by the Philippines, China, Vietnam, and Malaysia.

In a conference room in the new WesCom headquarters, he was shown slides of maps and the islands, color-coded depending on the country that controlled them, as well as the structures and military installations on each of them. Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenza, among other top security officials, accompanied the President.

After emerging from what looked like a straightforward briefing, Duterte, in a meeting with the press, announced that he had ordered the military to occupy areas in the South China Sea: “I have ordered the Armed Forces to occupy all the so many islands, I think 9 or 10. Lagyan ng structures (Build structures) and the Philippine flag.”

What happened here? It is hard to find any explanation other than that Duterte didn’t get it.

Apparently, the fact that 9 islands had been under Philippine control, 8 of them since the 1970s, and the last one since 1999, escaped the mind of the President. Each of the features hoists a Philippine flag and various structures have been erected, the most extensive of which are in Pag-asa, a municipality of Palawan.

This appears to be a simple case of lack of comprehension. But, in the first year of his presidency, this is the most benign instance of Duterte’s limited mental capacity. There are other examples where he shows that he is either under-informed or that new information slides off his mind, resulting in decision-making that is without rigor.

Overall, it’s been a year of living with an incapable leader who has cloaked himself in autocracy. His incompetence is masked by lots of bravado, using violent language, threats, and stinging curses. He fuels his rule with fear, a cover for his inadequacies. These distract us from his true worth as a leader.

Foreign commentators have criticized Duterte’s splintered attention, zeroing in on drugs at the expense of terrorism, and his seeming lack of coherence on two vital fronts, the war on drugs and the diplomatic battle against China, “leaving the country deeply confused and divided.” They are not far off the mark.

What institutions?

His first year in office shows that Duterte’s experience as mayor is vastly out of proportion to the demands of the presidency. And it has ill-prepared him for the checks and balances that are central to a democracy.

Shaped by decades of ruling Davao as the uncontested mayor, he has little regard for co-equal bodies. Remember that he threatened to declare martial law when the Supreme Court chief justice, Maria Lourdes Sereno, cautioned him on his unrelenting drug war.

And woe to any institution or person who challenges his views. He fired the head of the Dangerous Drugs Board for sticking to a lower figure of drug users, 1.8 million, which is based on a 2016 scientific survey, in contrast to Duterte’s 4 million, taken out of thin air. He calls his critics names and is unable to engage in a civilized debate – “Daldal ng daldal…wala namang ginawa… (He keeps yakking but he hasn’t done anything)” is how he responded to Justice Antonio Carpio’s push to assert Philippine sovereignty over islands in our exclusive economic zone.

What is most disturbing, so far, is that he has used the power of the state to send a critic to jail on feeble charges. It’s been about 4 months since Senator Leila de Lima has been detained.

Duterte believes he is often right, disregarding consulting with his Cabinet members on vital issues ranging from the declaration of martial law – he made the decision without meeting with his defense secretary – to mining policy. The President did not convene his socio-economic team to provide strategic direction in this crucial sector. It was only after Environment Secretary Gina Lopez suspended operations of several mining companies, creating an uproar in the industry, did the Cabinet meet to clarify the policy.

Drugs and disputed islands

Simple solutions are his responses to complex problems, like the magic wand of martial law and killing of drug users, thinking that these will make the problems go away. He still hasn’t caught up with the scale of ruling a country, unimaginably far from the “kanto-kanto” (his words) of Davao he used to patrol on motorbike at dark.

Take the drug war, his centerpiece program. Despite evidence showing that curbing drug abuse is not simply a matter of using force but is tied to social issues, Duterte has continued with his policy to exterminate users. He is unable to link drugs to poverty and the feeling of exclusion, poor governance, and unresponsive public health programs.

In foreign policy, he shows a similar limited understanding of the issues. For example, after the boost given by the country’s overwhelming victory over China in July 2016, Duterte sees war with our giant neighbor as the only way to enforce the ruling. He has repeatedly said that the Philippines cannot afford to go to war with China, dismissing outright peaceful avenues.

As experts have pointed out, there are a number of diplomatic options in the President’s arsenal, including strengthening alliances with claimant countries as well as allies to put pressure on China and creating a marine park in parts of the South China Sea to preserve the fishery resources and protect the environment.

Maute and Marawi

Duterte’s narrow mindset came to the fore again when he said the root of the crisis in Marawi, where Maute violently seized parts of the city, was the drug money boosting the criminal group.“…Ang puno’t dulo diyan is droga kasi diyan ang hotbed ng shabu pati drug sa Mindanao (This is rooted in drugs because Mindanao is the hotbed of shabu),” he told soldiers in Sulu.

While this may be partly true, the problem is not one-dimensional. Systemic problems, such as weak governance, poverty, and dysfunctional courts and prisons, have made groups like Maute thrive.

Duterte’s solution was to declare martial law in Mindanao. Again, this is only one tool in his kit. Will it fix the problem of terrorism? The country’s experience – 14 years of martial law under President Ferdinand Marcos and one week of martial law in Maguindanao under President Gloria Arroyo – has shown that it will not. Till today, we’re still living with a communist insurgency, a Muslim rebellion, terrorism, and lawlessness and feudal politics.

From the drug war to foreign policy to terrorism, Duterte wings it, propped up by his aggressive propaganda campaign on social media and elsewhere. This PR machine– plus the survey ratings that show him still enjoying public support – may lull him into a false sense of complacency. Past surveys show, though, that presidents usually get good ratings in their first year in office as the populace unites behind them.

Will this last? It will be largely up to the President and the people. – Rappler.com 

When we talk about human rights in the context of the Korean Peninsula, international media organizations and transnational human rights groups project by default the issue of human rights violations and curtailment of freedom to North Korea alone.

This significantly situates the country as one of the most repressive regimes in the world. The United Nations Commission of Inquiry found that abuses in North Korea were without parallel in modern times. These include extermination, murder, slavery, torture, arbitrary arrest, rape, and other forms of sexual violence. North Korea also operates prison camps where perceived opponents of the regime are sent to face torture and other forms of abuses. Collective punishment is used to silence dissent. The absence of independent media, civil society, and freedom of religion are also observed.

In 2016, an American college student, Otto Warmbier spent 17 months in detention for allegedly stealing a propaganda poster. The Korean regime claimed that he contracted botulism and was never tortured. Unfortunately, he died a few days after he was released in coma.

The regime, however, never ratified the Convention against Torture and Other Cruel, Inhuman or Degrading Treatment or Punishment. And even if it did with the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (ICCPR), International Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights (IESCR), Covenant on the Elimination of All Forms of Discrimination Against Women (CEDAW), and Convention on the Rights of the Child – it still fails in periodic reports.

Nevertheless, as we put significant attention to these cases of human rights violations in the North, we can have a holistic understanding of human rights in the peninsula by also taking a closer look at political rights violations in South Korea in the context of dissent against its government. South Korea, after all, claims to be a democratic state.

According to Amnesty International, one of the most important human rights issue in South Korea continues to be the National Security Law, which is used arbitrarily to curtail freedom of expression and association, providing long sentences or the death penalty for loosely defined "anti-state" activities.

The human rights discourse in the peninsula illustrates that human rights violations against democratic freedoms also exist in South Korea. These, however, happen based on varying and distinctive socio-political differences of the two Koreas, and their shared common factors.

Worrying trend

Human Rights Watch and Amnesty International report that there is a worrying trend of increased arbitrary use of the National Security Law (NSL) in South Korea since 2008 by law enforcement agencies, in the name of security and public safety. This undermines citizens’ right to freedom of association and freedom of speech.

Data showed that the number of NSL cases increased by 95.6% from 46 in 2008 to 90 in 2011. The figure of those charged under the “vaguely worded clauses” of the law significantly increased by 96.8% – from 32 in 2008 to 63 in 2011.

These data show that the South Korean government, through the NSL, has been justifying the act of arbitrary arrests of individuals by imposing clauses of the law in the name of security. In one particular case, members of the Socialist Workers League were investigated under the abovementioned law and found guilty on the grounds of violating NSL Article 7(1) “propagating or instigating a rebellion against the State” even if the members conducted a peaceful protest. They were imprisoned for two years and suspended for 3 years.

Also in the case of Kim Myeong-soo, the NSL has been used as reference to curb academic debate on the study of North Korean issues. He was a bookseller and a PhD student questioned for selling 140 books and possessing 170 others “with the intention of endangering the existence and security of the State”. In his testimony, he mentioned that the books used as substantial evidence against him during the trail are materials for anyone who studies North Korea or North Korean literature like any other scholars. In 2012, Kim Myeong-soo was sentenced to 6 months in prison and two years’ suspension, prompting him to abandon his doctoral thesis.

The muman rights situation in South Korea might be incomparable in terms of practice, but it only shows that South Korea’s government has been using state-enforced and strict security legislations as mechanisms to justify its violations in order to protect its security interests.

The absence of institutionalized human rights protection policies in North Korea and South Korea’s stringent security legislation provide a space for the further curtailment of human rights in the peninsula.

It is important to recognize that both countries, in the absence of reunification, want to preserve and protect their respective ideological and political standing against each other. Thus, both Koreas possess distinct security concerns and interests that would prevent them from deviating from the status quo.

Undoubtedly, both countries are ready to facilitate repressive tools in order to protect their survival from any external threats.

It is high time for human rights groups to also encourage the government of South Korea to examine the need to modify repressive clauses of the National Security Law, and take a holistic approach in tackling the discourse of human rights in the Korean Peninsula. – Rappler.com

Reuben James Barrete is a development worker focusing on human rights and social protection. He is finishing his master’s degree in International Studies at the University of the Philippines Diliman.

“In high school, if you had long hair, the teacher would call you up to the front of the class and cut your hair in front of everyone,” Marisol, a 21-year-old transgender woman in Manila, told me. “That happened to me many times. It made me feel terrible. I cried every time.” 

As documented in a new Human Rights Watch report, this kind of public humiliation is all too common for lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgender (LGBT) students in the Philippines, where many secondary schools and even universities impose rigidly gendered uniform and hair-length restrictions on students according to the sex they were assigned at birth, nominally for school discipline or pride. 

However, when students asked about the policies at their respective schools, in many cases teachers and administrators provided little to no explanation for these requirements. “I’ve asked them if having short or long hair will affect my performance as a student,” said Felix, a 22-year-old gay high school student in Legazpi. “The administration says, no: you just have to cut your hair, you’re a boy.”

Not only do these restrictions have zero educational value, they can be extremely damaging for LGBT students’ mental health and ability to learn. 

Students who do not conform to these requirements are often subject to harsh disciplinary action from teachers and administrators, including being refused entry to school grounds, kicked out of class, suspended from school, or publicly reprimanded and shamed. Alarmingly, several students we interviewed reported extended school absences, transferring schools, or dropping out entirely to avoid conflicts with teachers and administrators hostile to LGBT and non-gender conforming students. 

Human Rights Watch also found that even when students are formally permitted to wear the uniforms of their choice by administrators, school personnel can still harass or humiliate them in practice. 

Anti-discrimination bill

Dalisay, a 20-year-old woman at a university in Caloocan with no formal uniform or hair length policies, said, “when I enrolled in college, I talked to the head of the office for student affairs, and told her that I'm not comfortable wearing a skirt. We're allowed to wear slacks, but she said, ‘What are you, you're a female, right?’ I was speechless. The guards are also a nightmare. They'll ask, ‘Why aren't you wearing women’s shoes?’ And sometimes they'll even look me up and down from head to toe, which is really uncomfortable.” 

This kind of discrimination infringes upon students’ rights to education and freedom of expression, and contravenes both domestic and international law – including the Philippine Constitution and Child Protection Policy, and treaties the Philippines has ratified, such as the Convention on the Rights of the Child and the International Covenant on Economic, Social, and Cultural Rights. 

The need for a comprehensive anti-discrimination bill that protects LGBT students in the Philippines is clear. As Representative Geraldine Roman,  the first transgender woman in Congress, said last November, “We are your family; your friends; your schoolmates; your colleagues at work… We are proud Filipinos, who just happen to be LGBT. The question is: do we, as members of the LGBT community, share the same rights as all other citizens? Does the State grant us equal protection under our laws?” 

The answer – in schools and in the Philippines more broadly – should be an unequivocal yes. 

As anti-discrimination legislation languishes in Congress for the 18^th straight year, removing uniform and hair length restrictions is an easy place for schools to start protecting their students from discrimination, regardless of sexual orientation or gender identity. – Rappler.com 

Daniel Lee is the Asia Division Associate at Human Rights Watch. 

Himala na hanggang ngayon,

Malambot pa rin ang puso mo.

Himala na hanggang ngayon,

Ipinagmamalaki mo pa ring maging Pilipino.

Para sa iyong pusong busilak

Kaloobang matatag

Sa handog na saya’t halakhak

At pagkakaibigang walang makakatibag

Bes, maraming salamat

Ituloy ang laban, walang urungan

Sa ’yo na ang korona

#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.

Manila, take note. This will not be your grandfather’s US State Department.

That could well have been the underlying message as US Secretary of State Rex W. Tillerson testified on June 13 before a Senate Appropriations Committee on the Trump Administration’s FY 2018 State Department Budget Request. The proposed budget of $37.6 billion, significantly less than that for prior years, could well have major implications for America’s diplomacy efforts in Asia, whether here on a divided Korean peninsula, in the Philippines or elsewhere in Southeast Asia.

While there would be “substantial funding for many foreign assistance programs,” America’s top diplomat said, other initiatives would see reductions. The State Department and USAID budget, he noted, had increased more than 60 percent – a “rate of increase in funding [that] is not sustainable” – from Fiscal Year 2007, reaching an all-time high of $55.6 billion in Fiscal Year 2017.

“While our mission will also be focused on advancing the economic interests of the American people, the State Department’s primary focus will be to protect our citizens at home and abroad,” said Tillerson in his prepared remarks introducing the budget request.

There is certainly no substitute for the “hard power” of a strong military and willingness to deploy and use military assets. US engagement in Asia will benefit from an America that is stronger both economically at home and militarily abroad.

But the “soft power” of diplomacy also has its advantages in cost-effectively underscoring a nation’s values, commitments and presence. This must be kept in mind both by the US president and the leadership of the US Congress as they negotiate an overall FY 2018 budget that gets spending under control while advancing American interests.

Roughly defined as the use of an exchange of ideas, traditions and values to strengthen relations and encourage engagement, cultural diplomacy is perhaps most easily seen in the use of music, arts and sports to build cross-cultural understanding. In the early 1970s, an exchange of table tennis players – “ping pong diplomacy – between the United States and China helped pave the way for a visit to Beijing by then President Richard Nixon.

Diplomacy in action

Today, it could well be the power of American football or music that helps America and Americans to better connect abroad. This February at the Asia Culture Center in the South Korean city of Gwangju, I joined representatives from our US embassy in Seoul to support American cultural diplomacy in action.

A team of dancers from the Battery Dance Company of New York – on whose international advisory board I serve – came together with some 100 participants and their families and communities in Korea to help build understanding and bridge divides. Gwangju is the 6th largest city in South Korea and the birthplace of that nation’s modern democratic movement.

“Inclusion is the name of the game,” said Battery Dance Company founder and director Jonathan Hollander to me then, “with disabled students working with high school dance majors; Filipino young women and a high school hip hop dance club; North Korean defectors; middle-aged ladies from a community dance group; and the Gwangju Ballet.”

“Cultural diplomacy becomes a real live thing when you get diverse people into a space together and differences are erased, borders crossed, preconceptions challenged [and] cooperation engendered,” said Hollander.

Some 15 years back I had served on the bipartisan Advisory Committee on Cultural Diplomacy under US Secretaries of State Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice. That committee was authorized by the US Congress and established in the aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks, as security concerns led to increased restrictions on travel and greater scrutiny of visitors from some Muslim-majority countries. 

In our report, “Cultural Diplomacy: The Linchpin of Public Diplomacy,” the committee urged the then-Secretary of State to consider a number of recommendations that would strengthen America’s soft power in the ongoing battle of ideas, and create a cultural diplomacy infrastructure and policy for the 21st century.

More than ever, in this time of disruption and division, the need for smarter, enhanced US engagement extends around the world. In Asia, where China continues to militarize “islands” it builds in the South China Sea just off of the Philippine coast – and through which much of US trade with the region transits – the opportunity exists for the United States to positively raise its profile as a more responsible power and partner in the region.

The challenges of budgets and bureaucracy remain, but it is time for the United States to recommit to diplomacy – cultural, commercial and educational. As Trump and Tillerson disrupt the staid halls of the U.S. State Department, there should be no ignoring that robust, strengthened diplomacy is good for American security and for US-Philippine ties. Investing in diplomacy now also makes long-term economic sense. – Rappler.com

Curtis S. Chin, a former US Ambassador to the Asian Development Bank, is managing director of advisory firm RiverPeak Group, LLC. Follow him on Twitter at @CurtisSChin.

“Ako na po ang nagsasabi: bigyan ninyo ako ng kaunting panahon,  I will improve the Moro land, Mindanao.” (I’ll be the one to tell you: give me a little more time, I will improve the Moro land, Mindanao.) 

These were the words of President Duterte to the people of Cotabato City in October 2016, when he launched the Comprehensive Reform and Development Agenda (CRDA) for the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) and nearby regions affected by conflict. It has 3 phases, focused on basic needs, infrastructure, and the economy, respectively. 

P59 billion has been allocated for its initial projects to be implemented by different government agencies. The Commission on Higher Education and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority will provide scholarship grants and skills training. The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) will focus on hunger, malnutrition, and sustainable livelihood. The Department of Health will continue sending doctors to the barrio. These are just some of CRDA's interventions. 

My primary interest is in securing the welfare of the youth, especially in ARMM. For interventions to work in the long run, they must foster young people’s social mobility. 

Development work, in other words, has to bring about intergenerational justice. 

The challenge is far bigger for ARMM, though. The projection for the region is that, by 2020, 59% of its population will fall below 24 years old. This figure is way above the projection for the Philippine population as a whole, which is 48%.

Having a substantial proportion of young people is a potential resource for economic growth in the region – that is, if they are healthy and adequately educated.

That, unfortunately, is not the case. 

Mindanao youth today

At the end of 2016, more families around the country have experienced involuntary hunger at least once. The national average is 13.9%, translating to about 3.1 million families. The hunger rate in Mindanao is 10% – around 515,000 families. Hunger is a compelling poverty indicator because it shows that food, the most basic need, is inaccessible. Imagine the impact on children's physical and mental health.

Indeed, nutrition is a challenge too.

Data from the Food and Nutrition Research Institute present a disturbing situation. Stunting, measured in terms of height below standard for a given age, affects 45.2% of children in ARMM. Once again, this is significantly higher than the national rate of 33.4%. This means that the proportion of children who do not receive adequate nutrition in their early childhood is bigger for ARMM than it is for the Philippines as a whole. 

No wonder then that DSWD reports that 31,000 child deaths have to do with undernutrition. That is 45% of total child deaths in the region. 3.7 million cases of diarrhea, acute respiratory infection, and anemia – all linked to undernutrition – have also been documented. 

In terms of education, ARMM also lags far behind the rest of the country. DepEd data from 2014 show that net enrollment in primary school is 75.64% in the region. This figure is yet again below the national rate of 92.57%. But it becomes unimaginably tragic in secondary school, for which the ARMM enrollment rate is 29.62%. This is the lowest among all regions. 

In a way these low figures are not surprising. ARMM’s dropout rate of 14% in basic education is the worst in the country, according to the most recent report of the Philippine Statistics Authority. To look for jobs and to get married are the top reasons for dropping out. 

ARMM’s functional literacy rate of 72.1% is also the lowest in the Philippines. 

Conflict and corruption

Duterte’s administration is very much aware of the troubles of Mindanao’s youth. CRDA is a hopeful and comprehensive attempt to secure the future of the region. 

Conflict and corruption, however, are getting in the way. They exacerbate Mindanao’s vulnerabilities.

Even if cases are isolated, the perception that Mindanao is dangerous makes it difficult to attract investors and tourists. Students from the Mindanao State University in Marawi, for whom armed conflict is everyday reality, have now been displaced. They are hoping for the situation to normalize soon and move back to their classrooms, libraries, and dormitories. 

We now know too that there is a close link between terrorism and the proliferation of illegal drugs in the region. Terrorists are taking advantage of the vulnerable – many of whom are youth – as manpower for their war and the drug supply chain. 

At the same time, while Duterte’s government has celebrated the success of its war on drugs, the country has slid down in Transparency International’s global corruption index. It is now ranked 104th out of 176 countries, way behind other developing economies, such as Serbia, Zambia, Rwanda, and Bhutan. 

Over the years, corruption has bogged down ARMM’s education sector alone. Nevertheless, cases have been filed against officials for overpriced textbooks and illegal business transactions. 

The future of Mindanao’s youth is at stake. One thus wishes that law enforcers exercised the same vigilance over corruption as it does over illegal drugs and now terrorism.  

Patient but critical support

For the economist Amartya Sen, the goal of development is to expand “real freedoms” to enrich human life. Deprivations like starvation, malnutrition, and illiteracy make it difficult for the marginalized to choose well to enrich their lives. 

As in other parts of the country, these deprivations are also present in Mindanao, and certainly most acute for the youth of ARMM. Removing these deprivations takes some time, focus, and a lot of carefully monitored development work.

Duterte’s conviction that he wants to correct “historical injustices” against Mindanao is one that its people will revisit in the years to come. That he continues to enjoy massive support in Mindanao is a testament to the hopes pinned upon him by those who are convinced that he understands their plight very well. 

The expectation for his administration to deliver is therefore very high. If there were any legacy that mattered for generations to come, it would be laying the foundation for a prosperous Mindanao. 

And so the President is asking for patience. 

It is in this regard that the administration deserves our patient support. But we can’t turn a blind eye to conflict and corruption.

The failure of Mindanao is the failure of every Filipino. The success of Mindanao must be the cry of every Filipino. – Rappler.com 

Jayeel Serrano Cornelio, PhD, is a visiting professor in the Department of Sociology at Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology. He is the National Academy of Science and Technology's 2017 Outstanding Young Scientist in the field of sociology. He is on Twitter @jayeel_cornelio.

President Duterte felt annoyed at unsympathetic speculations about his disappearance from the public view for some days recently, so annoyed he could not stop himself taking a dig at even a captive target like Senator Leila de Lima.

He said: “De Lima said I should tell the truth about where I was....She said I should not lie to the nation. De Lima is only interested to hear [about] my…death. She does not care if I live. She’s only waiting for it to be announced that Duterte is dead.”

Thrown in jail by the Duterte regime 3 months ago, on the word of apparently conscripted drug convicts that she took drug money, De Lima has been helpless as an elected official – helpless but for managing sometimes to get a statement smuggled out of her cell, such as the one that piqued Duterte now. Did he really expect De Lima to be nice at all?

In fact, I’ve observed otherwise well-practiced Christians projecting un-Christian-like thoughts about his disappearance. Some of them, inspired by the war in Marawi, have rewritten a cardinal Christian rule to make it not only more current but also more dramatic in their disavowal of it: If someone bombs your right cheek away, offer the left – or what’s left of it.

One might have expected Duterte to be simply amused at all these ill thoughts, as seems only presidential, but then it’s not easy to fathom the pathology of narcissism. And, given the depth of his affliction as set down in clinical records and also manifested in his authoritarian predisposition, Duterte would be a special case even among narcissists.

Enough evidence is betrayed in a number of instances: one, in his own admission of taking the law in his hands and of in fact taking lives by his own hand as mayor of his Davao City; two, in the thousands of dead in his brutal war on drugs; three, in the bombing of Marawi (pop. 200,000) from the air, supposedly for hosting terrorists; four, in the declaration of martial law not only for Marawi or the province in which it is contained but for all of Mindanao; and, five, in his oft-repeated threat to expand the emergency countrywide.

(Never mind his self-ranking as a triumvir with China’s Xi Jinping and Russia’s Vladimir Putin – it’s a common case of narcissistic delusion; it gets prominent play in Duterte’s case only because being president makes him a distinct narcissist.)

At any rate, as someone larger than life even by his own deluded estimation, Duterte was bound to be missed. His absence was mysterious (it still is) and conspicuous (how he obviously relishes being nationally televised as he sermonizes to all and sundry!). But more than a matter of curiosity, it was a matter of public interest – and a very serious one.

A president’s absence by incapacity, if kept secret, leaves the ship of state either unpiloted or in improper hands. Again, whether the ship sails better with an interloper than with the proper pilot is beside the point. The issue is a constitutional one: if the president becomes incapacitated the vice-president takes over. Simple, undebatable, non-negotiable.

Duterte may not have been incapacitated, but, as he says, merely confined to bed. Still, his reappearance in apparently fair capacity doesn’t make the issue irrelevant. The issue has been relevant since he admitted he was sick and under serious treatment – with, among other drugs, fentanyl, a potent opioid; he even intimated doubts about living through his term.

Duterte, however, refuses to reveal his precise state of health in a public medical report, thus inspiring all sorts of speculation. One sort compares his case with that of Ferdinand Marcos, who managed to conceal his own incapacities from illness under the cover of martial law. The comparison is inevitable – Duterte professedly idolizes both Marcos and his martial law – and so are continuous speculations about his health.

I don’t know how the denseness of his narcissism could be penetrated, but Duterte should be made to understand somehow that, if people wonder whether he is sick, or worse, it’s not personal; it’s constitutional. – Rappler.com

The following is the valedictory address of BS Molecular Biology and Biotechnology summa cum laude graduate Arman Ali Ghodsinia during the 106th commencement exercises of the University of the Philippines Diliman on Sunday, June 25. Ghodsinia hails from Marawi City.

To my fellow graduates and to our esteemed teachers; to our parents, family and dear friends; I would like to begin by greeting all of you with words of peace: "Assalamu’alaikom," or peace be with you.

With everything that has been going on in the Philippines – with the wars that have been waged both in Mindanao and beyond – the call for peace becomes all the more necessary. Before you, I stand not merely as the first Maranao to graduate summa cum laude of this University. But before you, I stand as an advocate of peace and unity.

I stand with you, my fellow Iskolars ng Bayan, as we express our solidarity to the people of Mindanao and beyond. Maranao or not; Christian, Muslim, Lumad or not; we all, as one collective Filipino youth and more specifically as one graduating body of Iskolars ng Bayan, stand together in affirming our promise to the Filipino people that of being of service to others – most especially in such times of crises. (READ: All religions should promote peace)

Indeed, today, we gather here to celebrate a significant chapter of our lives. After all the years of hard work, joy and pain, we beam with pride as we finally graduate from the country’s most prestigious state university, our beloved University of the Philippines. Today, we're all united in celebrating this collective feeling of gratitude and sheer happiness as finally, we're able to say that "Yes! Through honor and excellence, we indeed finally made it!" (READ: I survived UP)

But of course, as UP students, we know quite dearly how none of us operate in an isolated vacuum. Our university and our life as 'Iskolars ng Bayan' is heavily interlinked with the beating heart of this nation. We cannot fully revel in joy, when we know that thousands and millions are left behind.

Thus, at points of crisis or deep humanitarian suffering, we are among the first to raise our voice against such pain and injustice. Whether or not we suffer the direct and primary injury is of no moment – for our duties and responsibilities, as Iskolars ng Bayan, are interconnected with those of our nation’s.

In Filipino, this is what we call "pagmamalakasit". Napakagandang salita ano? Pagmamalasakit.

Hindi ka nag-iisa dahil may nagmamalasakit sa'yo.

Hindi ka napag-iiwanan dahil may nag-aalala para sa'yo.

Kung iisipin, lahat ng ito’y nakaukit sa ating mga karakter bilang mga Iskolar ng Bayan. Tayo'y mga kabataan na nagmamalasakit para sa bayan. Tayo’y mga kabataan na nagmamalasakit para sa mga kapwa natin – lalo na ang mga kapwa natin na nalugmok sa kahirapan o naiipit sa matinding kaguluhan.

Dahil sa pagmamalasakit para sa kapwa at bayan, tayo’y mga kabataan na nagsisikap hindi lamang para sa pansariling interes kundi para sa interes ng nakakarami.

As such today, we gather here not merely as any graduating batch of youth, but as a graduating batch of Iskolars ng Bayan… Iskolars ng Bayan who show solidarity and deep concern for the fate of this nation and the well-being of our fellow people. Amidst the joy and the revelry that goes with our graduation, we gather here today to affirm our promise that we, the young graduates of this university, will not falter in our duty to serve the nation and the people, most especially the most vulnerable and the weak.

And thus, for while today is filled with the joy we experience in the safe confines of our graduation ceremony, we also recognize that today also marks another day of suffering, fear, and injustice felt by many of our fellow people throughout the country.

Today, for instance, marks another day of hardship and chaos faced by our Filipino brothers and sisters in Mindanao. (READ: AFP to observe 8-hour 'humanitarian pause' for Eid'l Fitr)

As I give this speech now, we witness an ongoing crisis back home. Filipinos, both Muslims and Christians are forced to flee from their homes. Our Muslim brothers and sisters fast not in their homes but in evacuation centers. This crisis is just another addition to the long historical narrative of injustice and inequity faced by many minority groups in Mindanao.

Until today, my hometown belongs to one of the top 5 poorest provinces in the country. Access to quality education and healthcare is still low. Although my mother comes from one of the 4 royal houses in Lanao, she has told me and my siblings the painful paradox of poverty and inequity which lie behind such rich familial heritage. My mother has recounted to me how in her youth, she witnessed the death of her little brother and mother due to sickness that could have been cured if only there was "enough money".

How painful can this be, right? How unjust and unacceptable it is to live in a society that allows this to happen where people are left behind and forgotten?

But here I am standing in front of you today as proof that members of minorities like us Maranaos can also do well; excel and contribute effectively to societal growth if given the same opportunities and rights. I am speaking to you as proof that anyone, regardless of religion, socioeconomic status, or ethnic ties, can excel if equal opportunities are available to all.

As a young Filipino Maranao, I am privileged to attain this education as a scholar of the government. However, thousands do not have this opportunity. I speak here before you because I have been granted the unique opportunity of quality education, which I would like to give back to the people.

Bilang mga Iskolar ng Bayan, responsibilidad natin na magmalasakit sa mga naaapi. Kahit tayo ay magkaka-iba, tayo ay magkaka-pareho pa rin. As a student of molecular biology, I know that everyone is made of up the same building blocks of DNA – adenosine, cytosine, guanine, and thymine. Underneath all the external differences, we are all made the same molecules that aggregated to form a human body.

Naniniwala ako na tamang edukasyon ay isang paraan para maipakita natin ang pagmamalaksit sa mga naghihirap. As we gather today in the University of the Philippines, in arguably one of the bastions of education in our country, together we call to have a more inclusive education– one that strengthens the collective ties of our nation.

If we want to build an inclusive society, we should first have a strong national identity wherein no one is left behind. And we need to start early. As much as subjects like science, math, and the languages are important, then so are subjects that build on greater social cohesion among Filipinos of different ethnic groups, regions and religions.

Para sa mga magsisipagtapos na iskolar ng bayan, sana’y huwag natin kalimutang magmalaskit sa mga Pilipinong nag-paaral sa atin. Malayong lupain, ating mang marating, huwag sana magbago ang ating damdamin.

Mabuhay ang pag-asa ng bayan! – Rappler.com

Tawagin nating siyang Nena. Pinangakuan siya ng kasintahan ng pagbabago: mapayapang buhay na malayo sa panganib. Makakaahon daw siya sa kahirapan. Bibigyang solusyon daw ang kanyang mga problema. 

Malakas ang dating at matamis ang dila ng kanyang kasintahan. Walang duda si Nena na lahat ito’y matutupad. Noong Mayo 2016, ibinigay niya ang kanyang oo.

Bago pa lang ang relasyon, nagsimula na ang kanyang irog na magbiro nang wala sa lugar, at walang puknat magmura. Ginawa niyang biro ang rape. Sabi ni Nena, ganyan lang talaga magsalita ang macho niyang sinta. 

Kasalanan ng mga utak-talangka ang 'di pagkakaintindihan. Hindi nila nauunawaan ang takbo ng pag-iisip ng isang dakilang tao.

'Di nagtagal, napalitan ang paghanga ng lihim na pagkailang at pagkadismaya. Naging tanging depensa ni Nena ang pagbubulag-bulagan. Naging kanlungan niya ang katahimikan.

Pero sabi niya sa sarili, panandalian lang ang sigalot at matutupad din ang pangarap na kanyang inaasam. 

Kritikal ang yugto na ito sa ebolusyon ni Nena bilang isang biktima. Dito niya matututunan ang tinatawag ng psychologists na “learned helplessness.”

“Kahiyaan na ito. Ang laki na ng 'tinaya ko. Ngayon pa ba ako aatras? Napasubo na. Marahil tadhana ko ito,” sabi ni Nena.

Habang tumitindi ang karahasang pisikal at sikolohikal, lalong lumalabo sa mata ni Nena kung alin ang tama at mali.

Wala daw kuwenta si Nena, dapat daw sa tulad niya ay gahasain, bugbugin, patayin. Wala raw siyang silbi, kaya’t walang karapatang magpahayag ng opinyon, at lalong hindi dapat sumalungat. Bitch. Idiot. Prostitute.

'Di nagtagal ay 'di na rin sapat ang magsawalang-kibo – tumahimik man siya o hindi, nauupakan pa rin siya. Lahat ay nakasalalay sa init o lamig ng ulo ng esposo. Minsa’y parang nobyong nanunuyo at kumakarinyo, pero mas madalas ay parang demonyong nagsusungit, nag-aalburoto, nambubugbog, at nang-aalipusta.

Ayon sa mga eksperto, sa harap ng negatibo at positibong trato ng nang-aabuso, lalong ginagawa ng biktima ang mga bagay na sa tingin niya’y magpapasaya sa abuser. Lagi siyang nagpaparaya, nag-a-adjust. Nalusaw na ang kakakayahan niyang tumanggi, pumalag, at umalpas. 

Si Nena ang Inang Bayan. Siya ang kolektibong diwa ng Pilipino na ngayo’y busabos sa awtokratikong pinakasalan noong eleksyon. Battered wife syndrome ang pinagdaraanan niya.

Sa buong mundo, nagkakaroon ng pagbabangong-puri ang mga awtokratikong lider. Kinokonsolida nila ang kapangyarihan gamit ang paninindak, pambubusal, at lantarang pagkukulong sa mga kaaway. 

Pero kailangan ng mga Nena na kukunsinti, sasamba, at magpapalaki ng ulo ng mga awtokratiko. Lahat sila'y balot sa kulto ng kanilang personalidad.

Ang dating matikas na oposisyon ay maamong tupa sa bahay-katayan. Kakarampot ang matapang na boses na nangingibabaw. Hari pa rin ang "political expediency" at "political survival."

Wasteland ang taguri sa social media na tinalikuran ng maraming mahihinahong boses at nagpapahalaga sa mapanuring pagsisiyasat.

Gulat na gulat ang mga banyagang mamamahayag sa tindi, lupit, kababuyan, at karahasan ng mga atake sa social media laban sa mga Pilipinong lantarang tumutuligsa, kabilang na ang mga nasa media. Pero ito ang "new normal" para sa aming mga journalist sa Pilipinas. 

Ang masakit na katotohanan ay ito: tayo ang lumikha ng halimaw.  

Paano tayo umabot sa ganito? Paano tayo nasanay? Paano tayo magigising? – Rappler.com

Two weeks have passed since the first day of the Supreme Court oral arguments on the consolidated petitions to nullify President Rodrigo Duterte’s declaration of martial law. Both the petitioners and the respondents have made compelling arguments and have answered the questions of the Supreme Court well.

Memorandums will be submitted soon, if not yet done, and the Court will render its historic decision by July 3, 2017, at the latest.

It is clear that no matter whatever verdict the Supreme Court may issue, history has been made.

The decision on this petition, as lawyer Marlon Manuel has said, will not only be for the benefit of the petitioners, and not only for this generation, but also for the next. To which, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno agreed and urged the other justices of the Supreme Court to take pains in deciding this petition since it is not the "simple job of the court to simply say that Marawi is under siege,” or that martial law legally exists. Rather, their job “is to give fealty to the words of the Constitution when martial law is declared,” because “if we [the Supreme Court] do not rule correctly and do not provide the guidelines, then it is possible that this Court will only add to the confusion rather than [to] clarify a situation. And it is only a voice of clarity and sobriety that is most necessary in times of emergency.” In the decision of the Court, the 1987 Constitution will come alive.

There are 3 groups of petitioners in this case: minority lawmakers led by Albay 1st District Representative Edcel Lagman who fielded most of the questions of the justices in the orals; activist groups represented by lawyer Ephraim Cortez; and 4 women from Marawi City represented by Manuel. I am glad that we had this last group of petitioners who are truly material parties-in-interest, their lives, properties, and communities being at stake in what is happening in Marawi.

Aside from seeking the nullification of martial law in Mindanao, all the petitioners, especially the women from Marawi, emphasized the interconnectedness of their petitions with human rights. Throughout their arguments, the petitioners contended that martial law will inevitably result in violation of human rights. To this, Justice Noel Tijam asked, “Whose human rights are you seeking to protect?” Congressman Lagman answered, “The people’s human rights, Your Honor. Particularly, the residents of Marawi City.” In the oral arguments, representing President Duterte was Solicitor General Jose Calida.

Arguments of petitioner

The petitioners argue that the Supreme Court should nullify President Duterte’s declaration of martial law in Mindanao for lack of sufficient factual basis.

They argue that, first off, what is happening in Marawi City is not a case of actual rebellion. According to the petitioners, the rebellion referred to in Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution should be read in relation to Article 134 of the Revised Penal Code as this is the specific provision that President Duterte makes mention of in both Proclamation No. 216 and in his report to Congress. Also, they argue that it is this definition that the 1987 Constitutional Commission had in mind when they were referring to rebellion in this provision. Thus, in order to constitute actual rebellion, Art. 134 of the RPC provides that there must first be a rising or taking up of arms against the Government.

Second, the purpose of such actions is to remove allegiance of the territory of the Philippines, or any part thereof, to said Government or its laws. Here, the petitioners contend that the acts of violence happening in Marawi City lack that essential element of culpable purpose. The acts of taking up of arms against the government was only made in an attempt to rescue the Maute group’s leader, and not to remove Marawi from its allegiance to the Philippine government. Without such purpose, the petitioners argue that there can be no actual rebellion, and therefore, there can be no valid declaration of martial law as the same is required by the Constitution.

The petitioners also reason that, not only must there be actual rebellion, but also that public safety must require the declaration of martial law. They urge the Supreme Court to interpret Section 18, Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, not in two distinct modes, but in a continuum. In that, the Supreme Court is to not just review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the declaration of martial law, but to also exact whether public safety necessitates such declaration. Chief Justice Sereno has referred to this as the “requirement of public necessity.” The petitioners introduced to the Court several facts and statements that directly contradict statements in both Proclamation No. 216 and the President’s report to Congress. These facts, according to the petitioners, as introduced by them, should be taken as the true and accurate facts, and which if taken together with the undisputed facts, would show that, despite the acts of violence in Marawi City, the same did not satisfy the “requirement of public necessity” so as to constitute a valid declaration of martial law.

Despite their position, the petitioners clearly showed their concern for the people of Marawi City and the acts of violence happening in their community. However, they claim that the President does not have discretion in choosing between his 3 emergency powers. The President’s power to call out the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP), to suspend the writ of habeas corpus, and to declare martial law in the entire Philippines or any part thereof must be commensurate to the acts of invasion or rebellion actually happening in said territory and to the requirement of public safety.

The petitioners also argue that martial law is “an instrument of last resort.” Thus, prior to declaring martial law, the President must first exhaust all of his other powers before finally resulting to the exercise of his martial law emergency power. Thus, it is the position of the petitioners that the President should have first called out the AFP, then suspended the writ of habeas corpus. Should the invasion or rebellion persist and should public safety require it, it is then and only then that the President may declare martial law. The petitioners argue that the facts do not show such succession of powers. Rather, it is their position that the President directly resorted to the declaration of martial law in Mindanao without first exhausting all his other emergency powers.

In their interpellations, the petitioners focused on their argument that there was no actual rebellion happening in Marawi City. This may be a difficult statement to support because of the direct contradiction of what is currently being portrayed in different media outlets. Rather, what the petitioners should have emphasized instead is the lack of factual basis for declaring martial law for the rest of Mindanao. Though this argument was mentioned in passing during the arguments of the petitioners, it was more extensively discussed in the interpellations of the Solicitor General. In fact, it was not even the petitioners who placed the burden on the government to show factual basis for the declaration of martial law in the entire Mindanao, but it was the Supreme Court Justices who questioned this themselves. Thus, the missed opportunity (so to speak) as their petition would have been stronger if they had argued more on this matter.

Arguments of the Solicitor General

On behalf of the government, Solicitor General Jose Calida maintains that all the elements of actual rebellion was present at the time President Duterte issued Proclamation No. 216.

The Solicitor General points out that the petitioners themselves concede to the Maute group’s acts of taking up arms against the government. He also contends that, contrary to what the petitioners have presented, there is a culpable purpose to remove Marawi City, and, ultimately, the entire Mindanao, from its allegiance to the Philippine government. The Solicitor General explains to the Court that the intelligence data gathered showed that the Maute group had a long-standing plan to take over Marawi City, and use said territory as a starting point for takeover of the entire Mindanao. He continues to explain that all of the acts of the Maute group was in an aim to ultimately establish an Islamic State in Mindanao. Thus, effectively preventing all government functions in the entire Mindanao and removing the allegiance of the aforementioned territory to the Philippine government.

In response to the argument that the other emergency powers must first be exhausted, Solicitor General Calida claims that the President had, in fact, exhausted the same. According to Calida, when  President Duterte issued Proclamation No. 55 Declaring a State of National Emergency on Account of Lawless Violence in Mindanao, this was an exercise of his power to call out the Armed Forces of the Philippines. Because the acts of violence continued despite the calling out of the AFP, Solicitor General Calida insisted that Duterte validly declared martial law after having exhausted all other powers.

On the matter of public necessity and martial law in the rest of Mindanao, Chief Justice Sereno asked why then was there a necessity to declare martial law in the entire Mindanao, assuming the factual basis of the proclamation was indeed valid and sufficient. Here, Sereno emphasized once again the requirement of public necessity to be interpreted with the requirement of actual rebellion in order to justify a declaration of martial law. In addition to this, Justice Antonio Carpio explained that the general allegation in the President’s declaration of martial law and report to the Congress talks about capability, not actual rebellion. The whereas clause provides, “WHEREAS, this recent attack shows the capability of the Maute group and other rebel groups to sow terror, and cause death and damage to property not only in Lanao del Sur, but also in other parts of Mindano. (emphasis supplied)” The Supreme Court maintains that this statement only speaks of capability, and that what the Constitution requires is actual rebellion, not mere capability to commit acts of rebellion. Here, a clear distinction is made between the two. The Court thus requested that the Solicitor General include in memorandum of the respondents the factual basis for declaring martial law in the entire Mindanao. We can expect that this will be another important point of discussion in the upcoming deliberations.

Lastly, Calida ultimately argues that the actions of the President enjoy a presumption of validity and regularity, and that the power to declare martial law is inherent in President as Commander-in-Chief. Thus, it is his discretion to declare the same. The Solicitor General further opines that it can only be reviewed if there is grave abuse of discretion amounting to a lack or excess of jurisdiction. Otherwise, due deference should be given as the declaration of martial law is a political question that should not be looked into by way of review. To which, Chief Justice Sereno asked to clarify the same.

This question on the political question doctrine may be something that will be further discussed in the deliberations as it is this same doctrine that was used by the Supreme Court to unduly validate the Marcos martial law. According to the Chief Justice, this political question has already been discredited. However, Solicitor General Calida raises this doctrine again as reason to validate the martial law declaration of President Duterte. Thus, this defense of the Solicitor General has prompted further discussion on the matter.

Martial law vs calling out power

The Solicitor General was also asked to distinguish between the calling out power and the martial law emergency power of the President. Specifically, Justice Del Castillo asked, “What is in the power of martial law that is not in the calling out power of the President?” A lengthy discussion thereafter ensued. Calida said that “martial law is the calling out powers on steroids.” On this statement, Chief Justice Sereno cites medical literature which shows that steroids give the appearance of great muscle presence, but they do not address the illness. With respect to the petition at hand, this puts emphasis on the necessity to declare to the people what exactly are the parameters of martial law. Thus, Sereno asked about "the legal standards” that ought to be followed in order for there to be a valid declaration.

According to Sereno, a delimitation of the scope of martial law “assures petitioners who have brought up the possibility of abuses and a return to the Marcos martial law regime, that it is in fact part of the duty of the Supreme Court to ensure the safeguard of the Constitution and the protection of the Constitutional rights of its citizens.” Sereno also emphasizes the duty of the Supreme Court “to remember the AFP who under possibly misdirected order can actually do acts for which they can be held eventually, civilly and criminally liable.” Thus, it also behooves the Court “to protect the AFP as an institution. On behalf of them, this Court must also define the limits of what the President can direct.”

Historically, martial law was a power granted to the American Governor-General which he used against Philippine insurgents in the Philippine-American war early in the 20th century. The 1935 constitutional convention delegates, anticipating World War II and to counter the threat of communist insurrection, granted the President such power. Clearly, this was a power only for extreme situations and only for a temporary period when civilian government was not possible. Ferdinand Marcos, however, misused the power in the guise of building a new society, but really just to stay in power and for him and his cronies to plunder our economy. The 1987 Constitutional Commission, after debating whether martial law should even be a power granted again to a President, decided to compromise, but sanitized martial law so never again would we have another Marcos. Thus, martial law cannot abolish legislative councils, derogate the Bill of Rights, supplant civil courts, and replace local governments.

This is the genius of the framers of the 1987 Constitution: in defanging martial law, it reduced the power and made it equivalent to the calling out power which allows the President to order the Armed Forces of the Philippines to suppress lawless violence. Indeed, all the actions of the President and the military to address the Marawi crisis do not require martial law.

Martial law’s impact, as Calida himself says, is psychological rather than legal. This is not to say it has no impact on real lives: for those in war zones, in urban poor areas, and in rural areas, armed groups always pose a threat to the security of individuals and communities. Martial law enhances that threat and makes the military more intimidating. In Marawi, that might be welcome, but in other places, where there is conflict because of social injustice, martial law can lead to abuse of power. 

In sum, the new martial law has no legal consequences, but it does have real outcomes. The terrorists in Marawi seem to be liking it, basking in the international attention and recognition they are getting. Civilians in Mindanao both welcome and are threatened by it. We will see in the days ahead, especially if it is extended to the whole country, whether this new martial law is good or bad for the country. A lot of this will depend on the clarity of the Supreme Court decision in saying not only what martial law is not, but also what it includes.

Jurisdiction, other procedural issues

Though the petitioners ultimately ask the Supreme Court to nullify Proclamation No. 216, the discussions in the interpellations have outlined other issues which several justices consider imperative for the Court to address in making their decision.

Questions on jurisdiction were raised by the SC justices. Justice Mariano Del Castillo opened the interpellations on the first day of the oral arguments with a question on the basis of the Supreme Court’s jurisdictions over these petitions since such a petition is not enumerated under Section 1, Article VIII of the Constitution as one of the situations included in the definition of judicial power of courts in our jurisdiction. To which the petitioners replied that the jurisdiction of the Court is anchored on Par. 3, Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution. They contend that the two provisions are completely different, and that their petitions are a class by itself as the jurisdiction of the Supreme Court to take cognizance of these cases is given to the court by a specific provision of the Constitution. Justice Lucas Bersamin adds that the petition is unique kind of review. It is sui generis. One, in fact that, according to Chief Justice Sereno, “this Court is fully empowered to take cognizance of a proceeding that is entitled “In re petition” under Article VII Section 18 because it is provided, not by our Rules of Court, but by the Constitution itself.”

Another question was raised by other justices on whether or not the Supreme Court is mandated by the Constitution to give due course to these kinds of petitions. Par. 3, Section 18, Article VII of the Constitution states: “The Supreme Court may review, in an appropriate proceeding filed by any citizen, the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or the extension thereof, and must promulgate its decision thereon within thirty days from its filing. (emphasis supplied)” Hence, the discussion on the matter. Although neither any of the Justices nor the petitioners gave a definite stance on the matter, the Solicitor General argues that the word “may” should be interpreted to mean that the Supreme Court is not obligated to hear and decide on every and all petitions filed before them.

Other questions on procedure were raised as well. One question that was repeatedly asked by the justices was the quantum of proof that is required of the Court in deciding the petition. Although their petitioners varied in their opinion on what should be the evidentiary requirement in such a petition, we can expect that this issue will also be deliberated upon in the upcoming days.

The Supreme Court also asked both parties on the application of the principle that “he who alleges has the burden of proving the same” in the consolidated petitions at hand. Solicitor General Calida argues that the burden should be on the petitioners to show no factual basis. They must show facts to support their assertions. However, the petitioners opine the contrary. In fact, when asked this question during the interpellations on the first day of the oral arguments, Cong. Lagman insisted that the burden of proof should lie with the respondents or the parties insisting on validity of the declaration of martial law. Although the declaration of martial law enjoys a presumption of validity, the same is disputable. Thus, according to Lagman, all the petitioners have to say is that there is no factual evidence for the declaration and the burden shifts to the respondents.

Despite the important procedural questions raised during interpellations, Chief Justice Sereno reminds everyone of the constitutional duty of the Supreme Court “to ensure that rules do not arrogate from our substantive rights and that has always been a principal rule in any interpretative duty that we have.” She further opines that “it is only commonsensical that the Rules of Procedure follow what the Constitution designs because we could not have promulgated rules for the protection of rights unless they are first defined by the Constitution and by appropriate legislation.” Other Associate Justices like Justice Bienvenido Reyes also expressed similar sentiments.

Thus, we can infer from these statements that the decision of this Court on procedural issues and matters on rules will be construed during the deliberations in such a manner so that, as the Chief Justice puts it, “the ends of justice are to be achieved.”

Other martial law case: Role of Congress

Another important issue that was raised was the constitutional duty of Congress.

According to Congressman Lagman, “Congress has reneged on its duty” when it refused to convene on the matter. Although this issue was not lengthily discussed during the oral arguments because of the separation of issues, this is definitely a problem that the Supreme Court needs to address during its deliberations. Par. 2, Sec. 18, Article VII of the Constitution states: “The Congress, if not in session, shall, within twenty-four hours following such proclamation or suspension, convene in accordance with its rules without need of a call. (emphasis supplied)” By the wording of the law, it is clear that it is mandatory for Congress to convene. The provision uses the word “shall” which has been interpreted in several decided cases to mean a mandatory duty. Let us take the case of Fortun vs. Arroyo. In this case, the Supreme Court, in its decision, said:

“Consequently, although the Constitution reserves to the Supreme Court the power to review the sufficiency of the factual basis of the proclamation or suspension in a proper suit, it is implicit that the Court must allow Congress to exercise its own review powers, which is automatic rather than initiated.  Only when Congress defaults in its express duty to defend the Constitution through such review should the Supreme Court step in as its final rampart.  The constitutional validity of the President’s proclamation of martial law or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus is first a political question in the hands of Congress before it becomes a justiciable one in the hands of the Court. (emphasis supplied)”

As former Solicitor General Florin Hilbay has stressed in a news conference, “It’s very clear that the intention is for the Congress to perform a legislative review of the declaration of martial law.” The Supreme Court itself has previously recognized the Constitutional duty of the Congress to convene on the matter, and even regarded this duty to not only be mandatory, but also automatic. The review is automatic, because there’s no need file anything or to invoke anything to initiate the power of the Congress to review.”

Hilbay, in his petition, argues that this congressional review was meant to prevent abuse of power, and that, in the passage of the Senate and House resolutions supporting the President’s decision, Congress has unlawfully neglected their constitutional duty to convene. According to the petitioners, a mere passage of resolution is not enough to comply with this duty because the provision in the Consitution is clear. Congress is required to convene and vote jointly. Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution states, “The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. (emphasis supplied)” The provision evidently requires Congress “to act as a single deliberative body.” Thus, it is the position of the petitioners that this duty cannot be substituted with the passage of separate resolutions. They insist that “substantial compliance is no compliance.”

However, this particular issue is faced with challenges.

Traditionally, the Supreme Court has only declared laws as unconstitutional or simply stated that the Congress did something wrong. Thus, it is now the task of the Court to find a remedy for this matter. It is clear that the Supreme Court cannot issue a writ of mandamus to order the Congress to do something. But what now can the Court do in the case of a co-equal branch of government not complying with its constitutional duty? This is something we not only expect to be discussed in the deliberations, but it is also something we urge the Supreme Court to resolve.

Historic opportunity for the Supreme Court

In summary, we imagine that the Supreme Court will discuss the following in the upcoming deliberations:

• A delimitation of “what [the] government can and cannot do during martial law” (Chief Justice Sereno);
• Possible civil and criminal liabilities of officers of the AFP for acts committed during the martial law declaration should be discussed, including authority as local government and liability for the disbursement of funds;
• Discussion on the appropriate proceeding and other procedural requirements to look into the sufficiency of factual basis of a petition for judicial review; and
• In the Hilbay petition, a remedy that can be granted so that Congress will do its constitutional duty to review martial law. 

As lawyer Manuel said during his interpellations, what we have here is a “once in a lifetime opportunity,” a petition of the first of its kind in the thirty decades of existence of the 1987 Constitution. We should not let this opportunity pass without laying down these additional guidelines that will be followed by, not only the current administration, but also future ones.

And, as Chief Justice Sereno has said, “while the Court is very concerned about the violence that is happening in Marawi, we must still protect the fabric that holds together our society. And while we will and may uphold the power of the President, it is also our duty to ensure that that power is discharged fully in accordance with the framework that governs our country.”

Chief Justice Sereno continued to ask, “Otherwise, what will happen to this country, Atty. Manuel?”

To which, Manuel replied, “Then, we will be destroying the institutions that have been built over several decades from the 1987 Constitution.”

Chief Justice Sereno: “And what does it mean for us to destroy institutions, Atty. Manuel?”

Manuel: “Then, we are reverting back to the Martial Law Period during Marcos.”– Rappler.com

Tony La Viña is former dean of the Ateneo School of Government. Regina Ongsiako is an incoming third year law student at the Ateneo Law School and presently a legal intern at the Manila Observatory.​

Propaganda is the act of persuasion. When politicians want to change minds, they deploy various tactics – from the creative presentation of truth to outright deception. But propagandists don’t just have to persuade your average voter; they must also entice influential citizens to become propagandists themselves. They need, in today’s parlance, “influencers” to spread their gospel, their message of change. 

There are, naturally, multiple ways to attract influencers. You can make them sincerely believe in you. You can pay them.  Or you can appeal to their vanity. In the age of social media, where likes and follows provide instant ego boosts and where Facebook fame is easily parlayed into national notoriety, this appeal to vanity becomes a tool more potent than cash. 

Of course this technique predates social media. Ferdinand Marcos, for example, understood that intellectuals and top-rate academics desired to be with other eminent thinkers. Why did so many of our best brains work with the most corrupt president in our history? Why did they serve in his Cabinet, work in his research centers, and ghostwrite his speeches and books? It wasn’t just because Apo paid well; it was also because of the promise of being around the best and the brightest, of playing for the A team. Marcos also knew that if he read the work of the intellectuals he was courting, if he made them believe that he valued their contributions, he could make them ignore the moral depravity of his regime. 

At the core of this strategy of attraction is flattery since the human desire for affirmation is boundless. Few things make us feel better than having our opinions and emotions mirrored by others. And this weakness of the human psyche is known to social engineers, conmen, pick-up artists, and, of course, social media managers. These puppeteers, in turn, have mastered the manipulation of insecure fame-whores, who depend on affirmation much like the adik depends on shabu.  

Examine the personalities of most social media celebrities. Many have had a history of self-promotion, hucksterism, and even exhibitionism. These people crave to be seen. 

Remember when your parents first discovered Facebook and basked in the thrill of titas and titos commenting on family photos? Social media stars luxuriate in a similar loop of ego-stroking all day, everyday, and the initial thrill never abates (unlike in the case of your parents who returned to their offline lives). Their handlers are happy to keep them in this loop, using bots, trolls, and other networks to ensure that their ideas are shared, retweeted, commented on, and engaged. It is human flattery exponentially enhanced by the power of networks.

The frailer the ego of the social media star, the more susceptible he or she becomes to this manipulation. Have you noticed that many of these nouveau-celebrities were somewhat excluded in their former professions? These were writers who rarely got published, activists who never led marches, or demi-celebrities (like one-hit wonders), who barely scratched the big-time. Disdaining their old lives of mediocrity, they are now perennially bragging about how they have found their voice, their audience, and their cause on Facebook. 

So what if their peers looked down on them before? Now they have millions of “average people” following them and “learning” from them. So what if they could never become famous through “mainstream” outlets like universities and mainstream media? All these in institutions are “biased” anyway. Besides, why should they have their opinions screened by editors, fact-checkers, and elitist pointy-heads, when they can talk directly to “the people?” The Trumpist “alt-right” in America, for instance, thrives on Twitter because pundits who were even too nutty for Fox News are now being retweeted by accounts in  Russian troll farms. 

Psychological potency

None of this is to claim that mainstream success and influence should be the barometer with which we measure intellectual integrity. We should also emphasize that there are many social media celebrities, who have used their substantial platforms to reach out to new constituencies, while busting lies and speaking truth to power. Like any technology, social media can be a tool for the common good. 

Nevertheless, we must confront the psychological potency of this new technology and grapple with its effects. As intellectuals, citizens, and purveyors of information, we must all be wary of how new media forms can change us for the worse. When we post something on Facebook, are we doing so because we believe in the integrity and veracity of our message? Or do we post because we are anticipating the shares and the likes?

To be mindful of and to resist our yearning for affirmation becomes an ethical duty the moment we log on to our Facebook or Twitter accounts. 

Prophets and moralists have histories of being shunned. In the age of the instant ego boost, our new prophets will be those who say things they believe in and not just things that get them likes. – Rappler.com

Lisandro E. Claudio (@leloyclaudio on Twitter) teaches history at De La Salle University. 

It has been a year since Rodrigo Duterte assumed the presidency of the Philippines. Davao’s favorite son began his reign on the offensive, going on a killing spree that would claim the lives of over 7,000 suspected drug users in the next 12 months. He ended his first year uncharacteristically on the defensive, removing himself from the public eye for almost a week as the Philippine Army repeatedly tried but failed to dislodge the so-called Maute Group that had taken over and terrorized Marawi, the cultural capital of Islam in the Philippines.  

A month earlier, everything seemed to be going Duterte’s way. Using the Maute takeover of Marawi as an excuse, he finally delivered on his threat to declare martial law, which he had made several times over the last few months. The Mautes’ move had been in response to a failed attempt by the Philippine military to apprehend a much-wanted leader of the notorious Abu Sayyaf terrorist organization, to whom the group is allied, who was believed to be in the area. Duterte’s response – the declaration of martial law for the whole of Mindanao, the Philippines’ second largest island, to address a local incident – struck many as a case of overkill.

To some other observers, however, Duterte’s move was not surprising, given that he had not hidden his intention to follow in the footsteps of his hero, Ferdinand Marcos, should the situation, in his judgment, require the imposition of martial law.  In their view, Duterte saw the incident as an opportunity to take a step forward in his drive to consolidate authoritarian rule, much like Marcos had used a staged attack on one of his key subordinates as the pretext for his infamous move almost 50 years ago.  

It provided an opportunity for a dress rehearsal for the nationwide imposition of military rule, and in the next few days, things seemed to unfold according to the script desired by the President. Controlled by his allies, Congress evinced no desire to meet in joint session to approve the declaration, as prescribed by the Constitution. Duterte also warned that should opponents of the declaration bring their case to the Supreme Court, he would simply disregard the Court’s decision, a brazen challenge that the Court responded to with silence. (READ: Duterte to follow SC on martial law)

What Duterte did not anticipate was that the Mautes would hold on to Marawi, ferociously. As the stalemate continued, with soldiers dying, hundreds of civilians caught in the crossfire, and the ISIS-linked Islamist band extracting maximum propaganda globally for its cause, Marawi threatened to become the Vietnam of his presidency. Not only did it come to light that he had, in his trademark macho fashion, challenged the Mautes to carry through with their threat to burn Marawi to the ground a few months back. (READ: Terror in Mindanao: The Mautes of Marawi)

The takeover exposed the fact that, with his single-minded focus on killing drug users, he had paid absolutely no attention to coming up with a political solution to one of the country’s most pressing problems: the smoldering Moro insurgency in his own region. Now, he had been forced into the dead-end of a military solution with US support, which was precisely what the radical Islamists wanted in pursuit of their dream of making Muslim Mindanao a second front of their struggle to establish a global Islamic caliphate.

The year of killing indiscriminately

Marawi was, however, a rare setback in a year where most things went swimmingly for the man from Davao. 

Most Filipinos do not remember having lived through a more tension-filled, nerve-wracking year since the overthrow of the dictatorship over 3 decades back. Unlike most politicians, Duterte delivered on his main promise, which he had described as “fattening the fish in Manila Bay” with the cadavers of criminals. Thousands of drug users have been slain either by the police or by police-controlled vigilante groups, with the police admitting that 2,600 deaths were attributable to police operations while another 1,400 were the work of vigilantes. Other, more reliable sources put the figure at above 7000 as of early May. 

What is beyond doubt is that Duterte has brazenly encouraged the extra-judicial killings and discouraged due process. The very night of his taking his oath of office on June 30, 2016, he told an audience in one of Manila’s working class communities: "If you know of any addicts, go ahead and kill them yourselves as getting their parents to do it would be too painful." In October 2016, Duterte told the country, with characteristically sinister humor, that 20,000 to 30,000 more lives might have to be taken to cleanse the country of drugs. Having learned to take Duterte seriously even when he seems to be joking, many observers expect this figure to be an underestimate. More recently, to any policemen who might be convicted of killing drug users without justification, he has offered an immediate pardon “so you can go after the people who brought you to court.”

Kraisak Choonhavan, a prominent Thai politician, observed that, in a region where authoritarianism is once more on the rise, the Philippines is in the most perilous position since its authoritarian leader has come to power through a democratic vote. What he meant is that, although democracy may be the least objectionable of systems of rule, when democracy does screw up big time, the damage can be incalculable, greater perhaps than that which comes with the usual military coup, for which the region is notorious. 

This is, of course, not the first time that a man determined to dismantle democracy has come to power through democratic means, Duterte’s most prominent predecessor being Hitler, who stepped into the chancellorship of Germany with his plurality victory in the 1932 elections. Like Hitler, Duterte won by a plurality, getting some 40% of the vote in the elections of May 9, 2016, and he has aggressively wielded that electoral mandate as his main instrument in reshaping the Philippine political system, though this process has been carried out less by plan than through improvisation guided by his acute political instincts.  

Duterte’s middle class enrages

There is no doubt that he is popular, with over 75% to 83% of the people registering approval of his actions, according to recent polls. While he draws approval from all classes, his support is most aggressively displayed among the aspiring and downwardly mobile middle classes. The Philippines provides an interesting case study of the volatility of the middle class. At times, it can be a force for democracy, as the middle classes were in the late '80s, when they played a central role in the overthrow of Marcos and other authoritarian regimes throughout the global South. At other times, they provide the heated mass base for authoritarian rule, as they did for Hitler in Germany and as they do now for Duterte.  

Duterte’s middle class base is not passive. Beginning with the presidential campaign in 2016, they have mobilized to dominate the social media, engaging in the worst kind of cyber-bullying of people who dare to criticize the President’s policies on line. Shortly after his declaration of martial law, for instance, one of the most prominent pro-Duterte bloggers publicly called for the execution of two women journalists. Another Duterte fanatic registered his hope online that a woman senator who had criticized Duterte’s martial law declaration, Risa Hontiveros, would be “brutally raped” by the insurgents in Marawi City. Indeed, rational discourse is an increasingly scarce commodity among Duterte’s partisans, who ape their leader’s penchant for outrageous and incendiary utterances.  Perhaps the most appropriate name for them is the French Revolution term “enrages,” or the enraged ones. 

Interpreting his mandate as a blank check to do whatever it takes to “defend the nation,” Duterte has reversed the usual model by which fascists and authoritarian populists come to power. In the Marcosian model of “creeping fascism,” the fascist personality begins with violations of civil and political rights, followed by the lunge for absolute power, after which follows indiscriminate repression.  Duterte reverses the process. He starts with massive, indiscriminate repression, that is, the killing with impunity of thousands of drug users, leaving the violation of civil liberties and the grab for total power as mopping up operations in a political atmosphere where fear has largely neutralized opposition. 

With his declaration of martial law in Mindanao, Duterte is now embarked on the next phase of his ascent to absolute power, which will most likely involve the curtailment and suppression of basic political rights. Like the conquistador Cortez, Duterte has burned his ships behind him. There is no going back. Yielding power when his 6-year term ends is a vanishing option since he would face prosecution for extra-judicial execution of thousands of people, not only locally but internationally, since charges of systematic human rights violations have been filed against him in the International Criminal Court. But the main thing propelling him forward is his sense that his large numbers of supporters, in fact, support his drive toward authoritarian rule.

Duterte: Pharmacologist extraordinaire

Duterte’s signature program has been his war on drugs. This is no ordinary law-and-order campaign.  It is being carried out with a fanaticism that borders on the ideological and with a justification that reminds one of the pseudo-scientific basis of Nazi racial theory. A whole sector of society, most of them poor, have been unilaterally stripped of their rights to life, due process, and membership in society. Drug users are consigned outside the borders of “humanity” since their brains have allegedly shrunk to the point where they are no longer being in command of their faculties to will and think. 

In his speeches justifying the killings “in self-defense” by police, Duterte said that a year of more of the use of “shabu” – the local term for crystal meth or metamphetamine hydrochloride – “would shrink the brain of a person, and therefore he is no longer viable for rehabilitation.” Not only do these people turn to violent crime to slake their drug habit, but they are “paranoid” and could resist arrest, putting the lives of policemen in danger. Duterte has written them out of the human race. With rhetorical flourish, he asked the security forces a few months ago: “Crime against humanity? In the first place, I’d like to be frank with you: are they humans? What is your definition of a human being?" 

Duterte’s bloody campaign defies the consensus in the scientific community, much like Donald Trump brushes away the scientific consensus on climate change. Dr Yao Ying Ma of Binghamton University, one of the world’s leading neuroscientists working on the effects of drugs, said in an interview with the author that while drug addiction does involve modifications of the brain that lead to pathological alterations, this process is reversible, which is not only a theoretical hypothesis, but one that has received substantial confirmation in research laboratories and is broadly accepted in the field of neuroscience.

“Our brains, they are flexible. They have the chance to be reshaped, to be reorganized,” she says. “Through certain medical interventions, we can reorganize the brain back to its normal healthy state.”  The focus of therapy is to prevent relapse into substance abuse, and here the problem to be addressed is the mitigation of severe withdrawal pains, the avoidance of which is the reason people go back to the drug. Whether for opiates or for psycho-stimulants, such as meth, such mitigating measures are now available which stimulate the brain to produce and release endorphins that significantly alleviate withdrawal symptoms. Excitingly, vaccines have also been developed to block the responsive sites in the brain, leaving drugs with little chance to successfully attack it. 

For psycho-stimulants like meth or shabu, there is also now available electronic acupuncture or “peripheral electrical stimulation,” which ameliorate withdrawal symptoms, allowing drug users to, among other things, overcome lack of sleep, which most complain of, increasing the chances of a patient not relapsing. While neuroscientists like Ma see addiction as something to be reversed mainly by treating specific neuro-substrates in the brain, receptivity to a cure is greatly enhanced by a supportive social atmosphere provided by both the community and government. Criminalizing drug users instead of treating drug use as a public health problem creates the worst possible context for rehabilitation.

These complexities of the drug issue are not, however, something that Duterte would entertain. He believes that he is the expert on all dimensions of the drug problem, which he estimated in May of this year as affecting some 4 million Filipinos, up from his earlier estimate of 3 million a few months earlier.  The President’s figure would put the percentage of the population that are drug users at over 4%, a figure which not even the chairman of the government’s Dangerous Drugs Board, a Duterte ally, found credible, leading to his being fired by the President when he dared to come up with the alternative figure of 1.8 million drug users.

The revolt against liberal democracy

What is not in dispute is that Duterte’s promise to deal with the drug problem in a draconian fashion was a major factor in his being elected in a society where fear of crime is widespread among all sectors of the population. It is testimony to his political acumen that he was able to successfully latch onto an issue that most politicians had ignored. Yet there are more profound causes for his victory and his current popularity. One cannot understand Duterte’s hold on society without taking into consideration the deep disenchantment with the liberal democratic regime that came into being with the landmark “EDSA Uprising” that overthrew the dictator Ferdinand Marcos in February 1986 – EDSA being the acronym for the north-south highway that bisects Metro Manila, where the major mass actions took place. In fact, the failure of the “EDSA Republic” was a condition for Duterte’s success.

What destroyed the EDSA project and paved the way for Duterte was the deadly combination of elite monopoly of the electoral system, the continuing concentration of wealth, neoliberal economic policies, and the priority placed on foreign debt repayment imposed by Washington. By the time of the elections of 2016, there was a yawning gap between the EDSA Republic’s promise of popular empowerment and wealth redistribution and the reality of massive poverty, scandalous inequality, and pervasive corruption.

Add to this the widespread perception of inept governance and the double standards of the anti-corruption campaign of the administration of  President Benigno Aquino III, and it is not surprising that a resounding 16 million plus voters or some 40% of the electorate saw Duterte’s tough guy, authoritarian approach, which he had cultivated as mayor of the southern frontier city of Davao for over thirty years, as precisely what was needed. To borrow the novelist Anthony Doerr’s description of the state of mind of pre-war Germans, a large number of Filipinos were “desperate for someone who can put things right.” The Philippines may be headed toward a dictatorship, but it is, paradoxically, likely to a popular one, anchored in the country’s seething, frustrated middle class.

Ersatz populism

Though much of his rhetoric is populist, Duterte’s approach is not a populist strategy of using the masses as a battering ram for redistributive reform. Rather, his is the classic fascist way of balancing different class forces while projecting an image of being above class conflict. His campaign promises of ending contractual labor, curbing the mining industry, and turning over to small coconut farmers the taxes collected from them by the Marcos regime have remained largely unfulfilled as the country’s key elites have positioned themselves as his allies to protect their interests. All significant labor groups have rejected his labor secretary’s order “banning” contractualization as a cosmetic move with little intended effect. No new legislation to push forward the stalled agrarian reform is entertained, which is not surprising given the fact that the Visayan bloc of landowners in the House of Representatives is one of his most solid backers.   

A defining moment in the debate on whether Duterte was serious about a social agenda was the congressional confirmation hearings on his secretary of the environment, Gina Lopez, who shut down 22 mines, suspended 4, and issued show-cause orders to 77 others for encroaching on watersheds and destabilizing rural and forest communities. Her campaign had captured the public imagination, but Duterte’s allies in the mining industry ganged up on her, successfully pressuring the congressional Commission on Appointments not to confirm her, with the President sitting on the sidelines, refusing to personally lobby for her retention when a simple phone call would have made the difference.  Duterte is not a tool of vested interests; indeed, many of the rich are scared of him and his unpredictability. But money does have its uses, and it is essential to furthering his authoritarian agenda.

But while delivering social and economic reforms is going to be central in maintaining support for his authoritarian project in the long term, it is unlikely that the lack of progress so far will dent Duterte’s popularity with the masses in the short and medium term. As with Donald Trump’s base, hope springs eternal among a people steeped in frustration and desperation. Moreover, the middle class enrages who dominate the internet are not lacking in the ability to present the illusion of reform as actual reform or in their imputing lack of progress to obstruction by the dilawan, or yellows, which has become the term of choice for all those critical of Duterte.

Civilization’s thin veneer

While Duterte has an effective propaganda machine, it would be a big mistake to attribute his popularity to the work of “trolls” or paid internet keyboard warriors, as many of his critics are wont to do. The support for extra-judicial killings of drug users by large numbers of their compatriots is genuine, and this has perplexed many observers. It has underlined to some “what we see as the unalterable features of civilized life vanish in the blink of an eye,” as the philosopher John Gray puts it.  Especially after the EDSA Uprising of 1986, the Philippines was regarded as the “showcase of liberal democracy” in Asia.  An influential view was that in overthrowing Marcos, Filipinos were simply reasserting the longstanding value they put on individual rights, due process, and democracy that they had internalized during the American colonial period. 

The liberal democratic Constitution of the EDSA Republic – the so-called “human rights Constitution” – was seen as the quintessential crystallization of these national political values.  Then suddenly, in the space of less than a year, the majority of Filipinos have expressed strong support for a man whose central agenda is the extra-judicial execution of a certain category of human beings, drug users, with a large number of them not only justifying Duterte’s bloody campaign but cheering him on.  

Perhaps it is time we shed assumptions we have of our people as civilized beings and creatures with malasakit or compassion, and adopt toward contemporary Philippine society what the historian Daniel Goldhagen proposed to students of German society during the Nazi period: abandon all assumptions about your people, and instead approach them “with the critical eye of an anthropologist disembarking on unknown shores, open to meeting a radically different culture and conscious of the possibility that he might need to devise explanations not in keeping with, perhaps even contravening his own common-sense notions, in order to explain the culture’s constitution, its idiosyncratic patterns of practice, and its collective projects and products.” 

This would admit the possibility that under certain circumstances, large numbers of people, especially from the middle class and elite, are willing to be advocates or accomplices of mass murder in the name of law and order.

The demoralized opposition

For the moment, opposition to Duterte among the elite and state institutions is weak, and the Catholic Church hierarchy, which in the past was a strong advocate of human rights, is afraid to frontally take on the popular leader, saddled as it is with a lack of credibility owing to moral erosion in its ranks and its bull-headed, unpopular resistance to family planning. The Liberal Party, which controlled the government under the previous Aquino administration, has disintegrated, with most of its congressional representatives swearing fealty to Duterte. 

Formerly in the opposition in previous administrations, the traditional left, as is well known, is now part of the Duterte government, provided with 3 Cabinet-level positions by a wily politician who gambled, correctly, that the left, whose fortunes had been declining in recent years, would bite at the offer.  While the Communist Party and the New People’s Army continue to engage in off-and-on negotiations for a peace agreement with the government, the presence of personalities identified with them in Duterte’s Cabinet have provided “progressive” cover for its fascist policies.

What opposition there is comes from isolated figures, like Senator Leila de Lima, the former secretary of justice whom Duterte has jailed on trumped-up charges of being on the payroll of drug lords, from a section of the media, from human rights groups like the coalition I-Defend, and from new, refreshing youth formations such as the “Block Marcos Movement” that was formed to oppose the burial of the former dictator in the National Heroes’ Cemetery.

Duterte and the military

Interestingly, the one institution that could effectively undermine Duterte is the military. The President knows this, and to keep the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) on his good side, Duterte has appointed several former generals to key positions in his Cabinet and takes every opportunity to visit military camps. The military is central to his agenda of imposing martial law nationwide. Yet, it may also prove to be the biggest obstacle.   

Contrary to the perception of many, the military does not relish martial law. This is not because it loves civilian rule, but because it is overextended, severely overextended. This is the reason the AFP command was one of the strongest backers of the Bangsa Moro Basic Law, which promised a political conclusion to the nearly 50-year-old Muslim insurgency whose containment has been the military’s main preoccupation. The project collapsed when a US-supported raid into insurgent territory by Philippine police forces authorized by former President Aquino in January 2015 went awry and derailed the negotiations, much to the chagrin of many in the AFP high command.

With only 220,000 frontline troops, the AFP is one of the smallest standing armies in Southeast Asia and one of the most underequipped, having relied for so many years on hand-me-down weaponry from the United States. It has had its hands full battling several major insurgencies. Given its current strength, plus the fact that insurgencies demand principally political, not military solutions, the best it has been able to do is battle these insurgent movements to a stalemate, not eliminate them. Its failure over the last month to retake Marawi City from what some say are scarcely more than a hundred Muslim irregular fighters has drawn attention to its woeful fighting capabilities, with incidents like friendly fire from Philippine Air Force planes killing Philippine Army troops drawing universal dismay. (READ: Marawi battle zone: Urban warfare challenges PH military)  

Even as the army is being outfought by Maute irregulars in Marawi, its commander in chief has added a massive new task, which is to perform police functions in a whole region, in preparation for exercising police functions nationwide in his design to establish a nation-wide dictatorial regime. Duterte, say some analysts, has provided a gift to the Communist New People's Army and the different insurgent Muslim groups by releasing AFP units now containing them to assume police functions regionally. This will simply encourage these groups to assume more offensive operations, leading to more AFP casualties. 

The surest way to demoralize the military is to overextend it by pushing it to assume political and police functions for which it is ill-equipped. A politicized military that exercises police powers is a plague on the people, but it also stirs discontent and rebellion in its ranks, as happened during the Marcos dictatorship. Duterte fancies himself a general, but he may actually be unintentionally sowing the ground for future coup d'etat's. Like Marcos, he thinks he is riding the tiger, and like him, he may well end up inside it.  

The challenge to democracy

To the worried partisans of an endangered democracy, however, the choice between a presidential dictatorship and a military dictatorship is no choice at all. As Duterte’s reign enters its second year, they are faced with a tall order: how to make democracy, human rights, and due process attractive again to a skeptical population. It would be suicidal to allow themselves to be led by personalities associated with the old, discredited EDSA order. The Vice President, Leni Robredo, is a person of undoubted integrity but one devoid of the capacity for effective leadership, being mainly a creation of the Liberal Party capitalizing on the reformist image of her deceased husband. Once seen as a reformist force, the Liberals are damaged goods owing to their opportunism and cowardice, while the vocal Senator Antonio Trillanes IV, who wears his burning ambition on his sleeve, has even less credibility than the Liberals.

But beyond personalities, democrats must present a vision and a program that speak to the aspirations of the vast majority of impoverished and marginalized Filipinos and convince them that democratic competition is a more effective means of realizing their hopes than authoritarian rule. Only a party and program of the left can provide this leadership, but with the dominant sections of the left itself having been enmeshed in compromising, corrupt alliances with different factions of the elite, reinvigoration of the democratic alternative will demand a thoroughgoing reform of the left. Crisis, however, can spell opportunity, and Filipino progressives would do well to ponder the words of the great Italian opponent of fascism, Antonio Gramsci, at a not dissimilar moment in his nation’s history: “Pessimism of the intellect, optimism of the will.” – Rappler.com 

Walden Bello, currently an international adjunct professor at the State University of New York, made the only recorded resignation-on-principle from the Philippine Congress. He is the author or co-author of 20 books on the Philippines, Asian economies, international political economy, and other topics.

In April the government finally unveiled Dutertenomics as the President’s “economic and development blueprint” for the country. 

At the heart of Dutertenomics is a promised “golden age” of infrastructure, which includes at least one new subway, several new railways, expressways, airports, etc. 

All these projects are expected to ramp up public infrastructure spending by a whopping P8.4 trillion in the next 5 years. At this rate, infrastructure’s share to GDP is seen to increase from 5.4% in 2017 to 7.4% in 2022.

But how will we pay for P8.4 trillion? Can we really afford Dutertenomics? 

In this article we explain the delicate balancing act between the 3 main financing options: taxes, loans, and public-private partnerships (PPPs). 

But perhaps more crucial to the ultimate success of Dutertenomics is the President’s personal interest and involvement in the matter. 

With one year already gone and future tax revenues still left hanging in the balance, it’s time for the President take charge and champion Dutertenomics himself. Otherwise, the infrastructure golden age his administration promises could turn out to be just a pipe dream.

Why infrastructure?

First of all, there are good justifications for Dutertenomics’ focus on infrastructure. Various economic studies have shown that high-quality infrastructure tends to reduce transportation costs, promote trade flows, and increase people’s incomes. In principle, the more infrastructure, the better. 

Indeed, the country’s inadequate infrastructure has constrained our growth in the past. The figures below show that the Philippines has been one of the region’s most frugal public infrastructure spenders, and this partly explains our relatively low levels of capital stock:

Needless to say, our infrastructure needs to catch up with our fast-growing economy. 

But, admittedly, not all infrastructure projects will have the same impact. For instance, to reduce traffic congestion, the government must venture into “smart” infrastructure projects and urban plans that are friendlier to pedestrians than cars. (READ: Carmaggedon redux: Will building more roads solve our traffic problems?)

How can we pay for Dutertenomics?

Even with a good rationale, an infrastructure golden age surely requires massive funding. How will we ever be able to pay for it?

Back in May, a Forbes article went viral when it claimed that new loans from Japan and China, intended to fund part of Dutertenomics, will inevitably put the country into a “virtual debt bondage.” 

However, it turns out that official development assistance (ODA) – which comes from foreign governments and multilateral institutions – is expected to fund only 15% of Dutertenomics.

We also know from everyday experience that borrowing is not bad per se. For as long as interest rates are low, the grace and repayment periods are long, and the government exercises prudent debt management, these new loans won’t necessarily lead us to a debt crisis similar to what happened in the early 1980s. 

A much larger part of Dutertenomics will be funded from taxes and PPPs. Hence, the issues surrounding these two other financing options deserve more of our attention.

Tax reform must generate sufficient revenues

Easily two-thirds or 66% of Dutertenomics’ P8.4 trillion budget is expected to be financed from tax revenues. This explains why the President’s economic managers are so intently campaigning for the tax reform measures to pass in Congress.

Recall that the tax reform bill – otherwise known as TRAIN – aims to reduce personal and corporate income tax rates. To offset the revenue losses, however, TRAIN also aims to remove long-standing exemptions and impose new taxes on petroleum products, automobiles, and sweetened beverages. 

In total, the tax reform bill approved by the House is expected to raise P1.163 trillion of net revenues from 2018 to 2022.

However, this will cover just 14% of the P8.4 trillion budget for Dutertenomics. What’s more, the House's version is expected to raise 8% lower revenues than what the finance department originally proposed.

The tax reform bill is now in the Senate, but many senators are reluctant to pass the measure as envisioned by the President’s economic managers. Many of their qualms are understandable – they can't risk displeasing voters with the 2019 elections coming up.

However, without sufficient tax revenues, Dutertenomics could lead to successive budget deficits and mounting debt. 

Budget deficits are not worrisome per se. But persistent deficits could lead to interest rate hikes and weak private investments, as well as credit rating downgrades and lower future growth. (READ: Government hits P33.4-B budget deficit in May)

Remember that it’s not just Dutertenomics that needs funding. For instance, Congress recently passed the “Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act,” which will subsidize tuition fees in all public universities, colleges, and technical-vocational institutions. This law will require “more or less” an additional P50 billion to P53 billion yearly.

Hence, if lawmakers pass a watered down version of tax reform that generates insufficient revenues, they risk impairing the finances not just of Dutertenomics but also other big-ticket projects that they themselves enacted, like tuition fee subsidies.

With the prospect of frequent deficits and growing debt, the government should at least make sure that economic growth remains robust. Our debt-to-GDP ratio has been declining over the past decade, except in 2009, when public external debt grew faster than GDP. 

A growing public debt is tolerable as long as the nation’s income is growing faster. Hence, the last thing we need now are bad, reckless, and ill-thought policies that will disrupt the country’s growth momentum.  

PPPs may be faster and more cost-effective

Amid a tightening fiscal space, there’s one more way to fund Dutertenomics: PPPs. Indeed, government planners expect 18% of Dutertenomics to be funded through PPPs. 

Unfortunately, the Duterte government seems somewhat averse to this mode of financing, perhaps because of previous delays and their being heavily identified with the Aquino administration. In late May, President Duterte already removed 5 regional airports from the PPP pipeline.

With so many infrastructure projects to deliver, the government could not really afford to shun PPPs. In fact, based on previous successes, PPPs may prove to be the faster and more efficient way to build major infrastructure projects. (READ: Addressing myths of PPPs)

Some officials say they prefer the “hybrid PPP” approach, where the government constructs the projects and bids out maintenance and operations later on. However, this goes at the heart of an old debate between the economics of the public and private sectors: Can the government really construct major infrastructure projects faster and more efficiently? 

This question is made more crucial by the string of corruption scandals that hounded major infrastructure projects in the past, including the North Rail and NBN-ZTE deals during the Arroyo administration.

Already, red flags are up. Following President Duterte’s visit to Beijing in 2016, the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism found that some firms that brought projects home were in fact undercapitalized and inexperienced in the infrastructure sector. In a Senate inquiry, it also turned out that some of these new loans will allow the Export-Import Bank of China to name pre-qualified contractors for Philippine projects.

Because of the long-term nature of these new projects and loans, a considerable part of Dutertenomics will likely be paid for by future generations of Filipinos. Hence, if only to be fair to future generations, the government should be completely transparent about how Dutertenomics projects and contractors are chosen.

Duterte himself must champion Dutertenomics

In conclusion, Dutertenomics promises to fill our long-standing infrastructure gaps and provide a stronger foundation for future economic growth.

But to do this right, we must settle our finances first. With tax reform hanging in the balance, the government shunning PPPs, and giant loans looming in the horizon, only a thin line separates the promised infrastructure golden age from becoming a pipe dream.

Many of these financing issues could be resolved faster if the President took greater responsibility for Dutertenomics himself. 

Throughout his first year in office, the President has been criticized for focusing too much on drugs and crime, while leaving crucial economic matters to his Cabinet. Indeed, many people see Dutertenomics more as the Cabinet’s initiative, and not the President’s.

However, with the executive and legislative currently in a deadlock over tax reform – and the financing of Dutertenomics hanging in the balance – the President can no longer afford to take a backseat on economic matters. 

If only the President was half as involved in economic reforms as he is in the fight against drugs and crime, we could be on the road to the promised infrastructure golden age sooner than we might think. – 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 useful comments and suggestions.Twitter: @jcpunongbayan.

The following is the valedictory address of Juris Doctor cum laude graduate Carlos Hernandez during the Commencement Exercises of the UP College of Law Class of 2017.

Honorable Senate President Aquilino Pimentel III, UP President and Dean Danilo Concepcion, the members of the UP Board of Regents, Chancellor Michael Tan,
the distinguished members of the UP College of Law faculty, our beloved parents, friends, loved ones, and most especially my fellow UP Law graduates, a pleasant afternoon to all of you.

Eight years ago, I was working in a pharmaceutical plant in Laguna for 12 hours a day, from Monday to Saturday. It was a 12-hour shift, 6 days a week in the middle of the production line. I am a chemical engineer. I loved my job then but my childhood dream of becoming a lawyer continued to haunt me while I supervised the production of drugs, of course the not prohibited ones.

Attending law school after work from Laguna was impossible. It’s only when I was able to find a job in Makati that finally I looked up the evening sky and saw that the stars had aligned to make my childhood dream of becoming a lawyer closer to reality. The LAE is the only entrance exam I took not so much because I adore UP Law but because UP Law is the only law school I can afford. I was a working student, and I attended classes at night.

I would report to work at 7 am so that I can leave at 4 pm and avoid the MRT rush hour on the way to school. MRT becomes a war zone during rush hour. I would read my cases while standing inside the moving train. During rush hour, in a jam-packed, canned-sardines scenario, where I am sandwiched between fellow passengers, reading cases would be an act of bravery. Sometimes I was not that brave enough.

I would also read inside jeepneys unmindful of the heat and traffic congestion around me. Learning the law in solitude while commuting became a ritual. It became my sweet escape.

My mother, on various occasions, asked me to quit my job and offered to finance my education. I would only look at her and say nothing because I know that she would be borrowing money again just to send me to school. The love of a mother is pure.

My story is similar to the stories of many of my classmates in the evening block. Their stories, though, are far more inspirational. A blockmate who is also graduating today is a breadwinner who had to send his 3 younger siblings to school with his meager salary. A blockmate has to put her baby to sleep after class. Another blockmate still has to work after class for his graveyard shift in a BPO. The road we had to take to arrive at this moment of so much joy and great pride was paved with sweat, tears, but most of all, love. I would like to honor them today as it is such a great honor to learn the law in their good company.

Our stories are a testament to the truth that the doors of the UP College of Law will be opened to those who are brave enough to knock, and stubborn enough to knock repeatedly and persistently.

Each of us here had to overcome many obstacles on our way to becoming lawyers. These obstacles may not be in the form of juggling work and law school or in the form of doing a balancing act like reading SCRA while standing in a moving jam-packed MRT, but all these obstacles tested our grit nonetheless. Today we reap the fruits of our labor. And today we honor those who are with us every step of the way.

Our graduation is one of the most eloquent ways of thanking our parents for making our dreams come true. We thank you, our dear parents, for the love that is pure, selfless and unconditional, the kind of love which our law books tell us is so difficult to find. I thank my mother too who is here today for the selfless love she gave her son who is so ambitious to dare to become both an engineer and a lawyer despite our extremely limited resources. Maraming salamat po, Nanay.

I always imagine Malcolm Hall as Hogwarts where wide-eyed law students like me are under the tutelage of professors like Prof Dumbledore, Prof McGonagall and Prof Snape, who are the leading experts in their respective fields. I would not name who I imagine to be Dumbledore, McGonagall, or Snape or well, Dolores Umbridge. Thank you from the bottom of our hearts. We will forever be grateful for the knowledge you have imparted to us, and for giving us such intellectual experience that is one of a kind.

I would like to thank, in particular Prof Mark Dennis Joven, my professor in Credit Transactions. I flunked his midterms. Instead of signing my dropping form he challenged me to study hard for my finals. I would not have been a member of the Order of the Purple Feather, and would not be speaking before you now had Prof Joven signed my dropping form. Thank you Sir for believing in me at that time when I failed to believe in myself.

Dumbledore once said: “Help will always be given at Hogwarts, Harry.” [And I imagine myself as Harry. Or better yet Hermione. . . because she is brilliant and bold.] I made friends in law school whom I will cherish for the rest of my life. Thank you for being my anchor. I found a treasure in Malcolm Hall and that treasure is our friendship.

This is not to say that sheer determination alone is enough to reach one's dreams. I do not want to contribute to the spread of the big lie that poverty is not a hindrance to success. It is. Poverty IS a hindrance to success.

My life as a law student became more manageable with the scholarship grant from the family of the late Justice Jose Campos and Prof Maria Clara Campos. Every semester I would have lunch with Ms Patricia Campos-Domingo and Atty Rico Domingo. They are here with us today. Thank you Ma’am Patricia and Sir Rico for everything. I promise to pay it forward someday.

I could not have afforded UP Law if not for the subsidy of the taxpayers. I will forever be grateful to each and every taxpayer who subsidized my UP Law education. And I hope I can repay them big time one day.

Five years in law school were both a humbling and rewarding experience. The experience made my resolve stronger to fight for the things that are worth fighting for. Allow me at this point to share my thoughts on 3 issues that are close to my heart. These are gender, privilege, and most importantly, rule of law.

ON GENDER

At first I thought law school would be an ultraconservative enclave. I once feared that students like me who are members of the LGBT community would have to suppress our gender identity and expression so that we would not attract too much attention to ourselves. I even practiced introducing myself to my professors and classmates in an alpha male voice, which is, of course, not my real voice. I practiced saying “I AM CARLOS HERNANDEZ JR.” in front of a mirror several times. I was wrong. Because the moment Prof Gaby Concepcion entered the room for my first class in law school, I knew right then and there that I belong, that I did not have to use a different voice to introduce myself to her and to my classmates. In my fifth year in law school, together with my LGBTQ+ friends in Malcolm Hall, we founded the UP OUTLaws, an organization of law students who self-identify as lesbians, gays, bisexuals, and transgenders, and many more.

We also found an unlikely rainbow ally in Dean Pacifico Agabin. Dean Agabin is of the view that “to bar the lesbians, the gays and the transsexuals from the civil right to marry would violate the guarantee of equal protection,” and that the concept of marriage under the Family Code as a contract between a man and a woman is obsolete.

I fear that there are those who still think that a lawyer is less effective or less credible simply because he is gay or is flamboyant. That is why I think gay lawyers suppress their gender for professional reasons. I am confident that the members of the UP Law Class of 2017 would not entertain any such homophobic notion. One of the reasons why I studied so hard is because I want my competence to be measured based on merit alone, and that my gender would not get in the way of me getting retained, hired, promoted or even appointed.

It’s about time that we extend the equal protection of the laws to the people who do not fit into the oppressive gender and sexual binary by passing the Anti-Discrimination Bill, and by making the institution of marriage accessible to everyone, and I mean everyone.

The glass ceiling against women in the legal profession is gradually being shattered by the influx of many brilliant women lawyers. Our Chief Justice is a woman. The Chair of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the 1987 Constitution is also a woman, Justice Cecilia Muñoz-Palma. I hope that the same glass ceiling set against LGBTQ+ members in the legal profession would have big cracks on it soon, and be completely shattered forever. Our only wish is that we will be judged not by the effeminateness of our voices, not by the gayness of our faces, but by the content of our character and by the sheer force of arguments in our pleadings.

ON PRIVILEGE

There are two aspects of privilege that I would like to highlight about being a UP graduate and a UP Law graduate in particular.

Firstly, our UP Law education gives us a certain level of credibility whether we deserve it or not. This is a double-edged sword. We can use it to educate or to ridicule. The rampant smart-shaming against UP students may have its roots in the tendency of some of us to mock. Maybe we have been using ridicule as a tool of persuasion very often, even at times when the circumstances do not warrant its use. We have been mocking the uninformed and the ignorant as if the quality of the opinions they form and things they believe in are ultimately of their own doing alone, without taking into account that they might not have been exposed to the kind of education we have been exposed to because of circumstances beyond their control such as abject poverty.

Of course, fake news, attempts to revise history, and malicious propaganda being propagated by self-serving individuals must be dealt with, with the full force of what we know and what we believe in. Now more than ever, we need to win the war against untruth, and the battle against memory.

Secondly, the culture of pervasive “othering” has to stop. I am referring to our tendency to label people who are not from UP as “The Others” with all the derogatory and pejorative connotations we attach to the label. It is harsh to even joke about one’s competence based on the school one has attended. It is a subtle way of speaking highly of oneself by reducing another’s worth.

We raised our voices so that the muted cries coming from the graves of the victims of Martial Law would be heard when Marcos was buried in Libingan ng mga Bayani. We protested against the death penalty because it is a cruel and inhuman punishment and the usual victims of wrongful convictions are the poor. We are also the first to express our indignation against the disregard of due process in this administration’s war against drugs. Let us be hated for these reasons, which are principled reasons, and not because we are seen as boastful of the education that we received.

The thing about privilege is that it’s like air: we’re oblivious to its existence yet it’s always there.

ON RULE OF LAW​

The rule of law is the raison d'être of the legal profession. It is pointless for all of us here to master the law if we could not even invoke it. We assume that everyone should appreciate and cherish the due process of law.

But we are wrong. We are wrong to assume that we share the same faith in and devotion to the rule of law with the rest of the public. Law or due process is now seen by many as an unnecessary bureaucracy, an inconvenience, or worse, a tool for the dangerous elements of our society to go unpunished and roam free. We are suddenly awakened that our shared belief that the rule of law is beneficial to all is, in reality, abhorred and despised by many.

We are shocked that many of the poor and the powerless approve of disregarding due process even if it is their only shield against the arbitrary use of the state’s power.

We all graduate today against this gloomy backdrop.

In a world marred by so much inequality, the last bastion of hope in preserving our dignity as men and women is the law. The moment this last bastion collapses, the only alternative left is a revolution which can be bloody and violent. May our graduation today bring balance to the force.

I was advised not to be preachy to you in this speech. And I am heeding such wise advice. Our venerable professors who are literally and symbolically facing us now have done a good job in instilling in us the value of honor and excellence. Their constant wish is for us to give back. Much has been given to us. Let us give back much more.

To that well that our professors have allowed us to fetch wisdom, let me just add something mundane. It is in our best interests as future lawyers that the rule of law reigns forever supreme in our land, whatever political sides we may find ourselves in.

If there is no rule of law, our soon-to-be profession would become obsolete. We would be reduced to mere actors and actresses in a pantomime whose only role is to give semblance of legitimacy to a legal system run by whoever is in power or who can give the highest bribe.

I have no doubt that many of us will be successful and brilliant members of the legal profession. Some of us, years from now, will be in positions of power. Some of us will wield the awesome powers of the State. We will become close advisers to those who wield such powers.

My only hope is that when the moment comes that we have to take a position on a simple legal question that becomes complex because of political or financial considerations, whatever creative legal position that we take, may it always be something that fortifies, and not something that undermines, the rule of law.

There are some lawyers who now spit at the supremacy of the courts in all things legal just because they are now ensconced in the other two co-equal branches of the government, the legislative and the executive. They willfully forget the fundamental rights enshrined in the Bill of Rights they once memorized so that they can cling to power. Let us not follow in their footsteps. Let us instead erase those footsteps from the face of the earth.

The people have lost faith in a system they rightly perceive as highly legalistic, always in delay, and serving only the interests of the rich and the powerful.

Martin Luther King Jr once said: “[W]e shall overcome, deep in my heart I do believe we shall overcome. And I believe it because somehow the arc of the moral universe is long but it bends towards justice.”

My fellow graduates of the UP College of Law, I am excited to work with all of you, as future great lawyers of this nation, in bending this stubborn arc towards the direction of justice. Maraming salamat po.

Isang mapagpalayang hapon sa inyong lahat. – Rappler.com