– Rappler.com

Artwork by Ernest John Fiestan
Text by Marguerite de Leon & Stacy de Jesus

#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.

When Palace communications officials are asked to explain the newly-signed department order allowing bloggers or “social media practitioners” to cover presidential events, one of the first things they say is that it’s only an “interim” policy subject to revisions.

Presidential Communications Secretary Martin Andanar has said he is open to comments and suggestions on how to improve the policy. As it is, the two-page document has raised more questions than provided solutions given its vague wording and incompatibility with how presidential coverage is organized on the ground.

Malacañang Press Corps (MPC) members were the first to question provisions of the policy during a press conference on Thursday, August 10. Since then, there have been heated discussions, both online and offline, about a measure that could have wide-reaching effects on everything from free speech to President Rodrigo Duterte’s safety.

Where does PCOO’s Department Order No 15 leave the public hanging?

1. Why the overly-broad requirement of 18-years-old minimum age and at least 5,000 followers?

The response of PCOO Assistant Secretary Kris Ablan – that this is to make the accreditation process more “open” and “populist” – does not even begin to resolve future issues of massive applications pouring into Mocha Uson’s Social Media Office. With such sparse requirements, how does her office choose from all the applicants? What basis will be used to choose one blogger over another given the limited resources available in presidential coverage?

2. How to ensure no favoritism or discrimination against bloggers who are not close to the Duterte administration?  

Given the bare requirements, the policy leaves a lot of room for Uson or Andanar to accredit only bloggers they prefer. Ablan says there will be no favoritism, but unless something is written down as policy, nothing can prevent it from happening.

3. How does the policy take into consideration finite government resources and limitations in presidential events? 

If presidential engagements in and out of Malacañang had unlimited resources to accommodate anyone interested to cover these events, access for bloggers may not be such a big deal. But the reality is that in events attended by the country’s leader, there is only so much room.

With the large leeway given to bloggers and no requirement for them to even produce content from their coverage, how does PCOO ensure the resources devoted to bloggers don’t go to waste? What’s to stop a blogger from walking into a forum and leaving without having done anything to promote the event?

The PCOO does not impose any content requirements on journalists because they can count on media companies to demand content from their correspondents. Their policy for bloggers leaves plenty of room for free-loaders. 

4. What are accredited bloggers not allowed to do? 

The policy is vague on what counts as bloggers’ "abuse of rights and privileges extended by PCOO" and "improper use" of the accreditation. Nothing in the policy, therefore, stops bloggers from using foul language, make unfounded claims, or spread fake news.

5. Will accredited bloggers be given more access to the President than journalists?

A provision  in the PCOO guidelines states that bloggers’ accreditation will be on a per event basis. It also states that their application must be reviewed within 3 working days. But President Duterte’s schedule of activities is often sent to journalists a day or less than a day before the event.

Does this provision mean bloggers will be given the President’s schedule even before it is sent to media? Will bloggers also be required not to broadcast the schedule, just as journalists are told not to do, in order to protect the President?

6. Has PCOO considered the legitimacy it is lending to bloggers through this accreditation process? 

Secretary Andanar insisted in an Aksyon TV interview that, for the PCOO, bloggers “are not journalists.” But has he considered that accreditation puts Malacañang’s imprimatur on these bloggers and thus legitimizes them in the eyes of many?

This imprimatur can be taken as approval for the bloggers' acts or messages. Is PCOO ready to legitimize bloggers who harass and intimidate individuals or groups online, or spread fake news, to the detriment of the citizenry?

Ablan reasons that PCOO can't impose any code of ethics on bloggers in exchange for this legitimacy, since PCOO doesn't impose any such code on journalists. What he doesn't say is that journalists are already bound to a code of ethics, for instance, by the media companies they belong to, with or without PCOO. The MPC also has by-laws that prescribe disciplinary action on erring members.

Bloggers demand respect for their right to freedom of expression yet no one is saying they can't blog if they curse or lie. Some, however, have argued that bloggers who curse and lie should not receive accreditation. Freedom of expression is a right but gaining Malacañang accreditation is a privilege.

7. How will PCOO arrange press conferences with journalists and bloggers? 

Journalists covering Malacañang attend almost daily press briefings held by Presidential Spokesman Ernesto Abella and at least one government official as guest. Ablan said the idea of the bloggers’ policy is to allow them to cover such press conferences as well.

How will the PCOO limit the number of bloggers who will attend, given limited space in the press briefing venue?  If there is not enough space, who will get bumped off, journalists or bloggers? How will time be divided during the question and answer portion? 

This is not even considering press conferences called by Duterte himself, when there will definitely be intense competition for his attention and his responses. 

These questions pose a challenge to PCOO to craft a bloggers’ accreditation policy that balances all interests and concerns, but which, first and foremost, protects the interest of the public. – Rappler.com

As movement across countries becomes easier and more frequent, the one situation we all dread is getting sick and needing to access health services in a foreign country. Even as we worry about getting well, we end up worrying more about how to pay for it.

For low-income migrant workers from developing countries of Asia and the Pacific, getting sick may not only put them at risk of losing their jobs and income, with huge bills to pay. It may very well drive them into poverty.

Many Asian countries have made impressive strides towards providing health coverage for their citizens – particularly the poor – by setting up national health insurance systems (NHIs) that compel the formal sector to contribute to premiums. They also facilitate the enrollment of the non-poor informal sector, and fully subsidize the insurance coverage of the poor and other vulnerable populations.

Pooling these various revenue sources, NHIs then leverage their purchasing power to buy health care services from public and private providers for their respective covered populations.

Indonesia's national health insurer now covers 169 million people, and the Philippine government reports that 92% of all Filipinos are insured. India will soon expand health insurance coverage to over 800 million people, while the covered population in the People's Republic of China is over a billion. (READ: Scaling up national health insurance to deliver universal health coverage)

But as countries expand health care services for the covered population, they also need to guarantee the same health coverage for citizens when they are in foreign countries, as well as for foreign residents.

Health coverage for migrant workers

Countries need to make their health coverage "roam." If increasing mobility, innovative thinking, and collaboration across countries have rapidly made phone roaming a reality, health coverage should be able to roam too.

Asians are increasingly moving around the region, mostly to find jobs, up to 31 million in 2015 alone. That number is likely to rise as the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Economic Community makes it easier for workers to cross borders. The increasing movement across borders into growing and interconnected economies will surely make roaming universal health coverage (UHC) a reality soon.

This is crucial for informal communities like migrant workers, who are vulnerable to a range of infectious and non-communicable diseases, mental health disorders, maternal mortality, substance use, alcoholism, malnutrition, and violence. They face barriers to decent health care – especially if their legal status is uncertain.

Imagine how much easier their lives would be if their home country NHI could cover the treatment they need overseas, and also foot the bill. Within ASEAN, for instance, a national health insurance card of one member country would be enough to ensure coverage in the others. It would make UHC truly universal (or at least regional).

Sadly, roaming health coverage has not matured in Asia.

The Philippines requires its outgoing migrant workers to get health insurance coverage, but this means paying upfront and getting reimbursed later. Indonesia, Nepal, and other countries are implementing similar schemes, and experiencing the same weaknesses and problems.

More buy-in for UHC

The limited coverage is not surprising given that several countries still struggle to ensure financial protection with their NHI and other health coverage schemes. The share of household out-of-pocket payments for health care services is persistently high, at more than 50% of total health spending in Cambodia, the Lao People's Democratic Republic, India, Pakistan and the Philippines.

But here too there is positive news. NHIs are pooling all types of pre-payments, including taxes and insurance premiums, into single funds that not only cross-subsidize from the rich and young to the poor and old, but also reduce implementation inefficiencies. This has happened in the Republic of Korea, where the introduction of a single pool NHI decreased administrative costs from 6.5% to 4.5% of total expenses. Government health purchasers are being strengthened by social and political buy-in for UHC.

In the Philippines, lawmakers earmarked in 2012 the most incremental sin tax revenue increases to subsidize the poor and other vulnerable people. And there is increasing centralization of health information and sharing of health data across public and private health systems. This is making many NHIs more strategic and efficient.

These developments provide a solid platform for roaming health coverage. It would also help to have more clarity in benefits packages, payment methods, and health guarantees. Inter-connected and inter-operable health information systems across countries would facilitate bilateral and multi-lateral mutual recognition and agreements that could formalize roaming. 

Within ASEAN, negotiations for multilateral recognition of Southeast Asian countries may not be needed at all. ASEAN can be act as a launching pad for roaming coverage, as does the EU, which allows roaming health coverage for any EU citizen in any EU country.

In a world where borders are blurring and becoming increasingly permeable, health coverage needs to be just as mobile. If not, it will never be truly universal. – Rappler.com

Eduardo P. Banzon is principal health specialist at the Sustainable Development and Climate Change Department of the Asian Development Bank. This piece was first published on the Asian Development Blog. 

Millennials are enamored with filters. Some of us slap it on photos like crazy. But when it comes to words, we don't hold back. No filter. Some say they resort to cursing because only through this can they truly express their deepest frustrations.

We are constantly encouraged to take part in civic discussions offline and online because our voices can make a difference and it matters. This is true. But at the same time, the world is a messed up place, and it can get difficult to filter our words when we encounter issues that offend our sensibilities. 

 Profanities, defined as blasphemous or obscene language, are normally curse words like "gago" (dumbass), "tarantado" (bastard), or "putang ina" (son of a whore). 

Personally, I avoid cussing, but I do not lose respect for people who do this. Everyone is well within their rights to use profanity as a form of expression.

Sometimes we exclaim "puta" (whore), "gago," and "fuck" as a knee-jerk reaction to something that we don't immediately have the words for. It's like saying "wow" but in a more vulgar manner. That is fine and harmless.

Profanity as expression, as attack

However, what's not okay is when we use such words against a person or an institution. Words, not just profanities, only become harmful when the intention is to attack or harass someone for who they are and what they do. That is hatred and absolutely not what freedom of expression is meant to protect. 

See the difference in these posts: 

Profanity as an expression: "What the actual fuck." Or "No one deserves this shit." 

Profanity as an attack: "Fuck you." Or "You're a piece of shit."

Meanwhile, there are also words that aren't necessarily vulgar, but the meaning changes when they're used to attack someone. For example: "Hayop ka" (You're an animal!) or "You're a bitch."

Because people are more vocal, the right to speech and freedom of expression have been invoked more than ever. When we are equipped with the knowledge that this freedom comes with responsibilities, quality debates and conversations follow.

Anger is such a strong emotion and it spreads rapidly online. However, when we choose to engage in a civil manner, we instead spread understanding and remind our peers of the basics of humanity. Words matter, so choose yours carefully. – Rappler.com

The week has seen the two latest cases of deviancy in the Duterte government.

One, its press office has decided to accredit bloggers to cover the President, thus equating them with journalists.

Two, President Duterte has pinned a medal on a police official, thus equating him with heroes, for his lead role in the war against drugs, which has accounted for thousands of deaths, many of them suspected as summary executions – EJK, for “extrajudicial killings,” in the lingo of the times.

When the communications secretary first raised the idea of legitimizing bloggers some months ago, I commented on it in a piece titled “A runaway train,” published here on February 3, 2017, and updated on April 19, 2017. I’m now reproducing some parts of it to support a larger point – consistent official deviancy:

"Accrediting bloggers would encourage a blurring of the distinction between legitimate journalism and pseudo-journalism, of which blogging happens to be today's most typical example; the confusion necessarily extends to the audiences, and that's where the disservice and the danger lie.

"Blogging is an individualistic, free-wheeling operation – although some bloggers are known to follow a common, if not collusive, line of thinking. It's the readiest, least-discriminating (in fact, it's open to anyone), widest-reaching, and therefore most tempting platform of free expression. It is cheap, and [it is] easy enough for one to equip oneself for it, and, once suitably equipped, one has the whole wired world for one's potential audience.

"Journalism, on the other hand, is an organized enterprise, both a profession and a trade, governed by universal rules of practice and ethics and tradition. Journalists are trained in certain disciplines and skills; yet, their practice remains subject to layer upon layer of checks, and they are made to assume their share of individual as well as collective responsibility.

"Journalism is an engineered [I mean professionally piloted] train; blogging is a runaway one."

The other case illustrates an even sicker twisting of standards. A Japanese word comes to mind: gyakuho, literally meaning “reverse way”; it was used in the moral sense when I encountered it. Our own gyakuho case involves Jovie Espenido.

Espenido has been suspected in the killing of two mayors accused of illegal-drug trading. The suspicion is drawn not only from his parroting of Duterte’s “kill ‘em” rhetoric but from his place in the scheme of things: he was the chief enforcer of the antidrug campaign in the places where the mayors operated and fell dead in his wake.

That campaign is itself pursued on a deviant concept of law and order, which prefers elimination over rehabilitation, which assures protection – and even reward, as in Espenido’s case – for the police, not for the suspects, not even for the public. Precisely for this reversal of moral principles, the public is left in terror of the police.

To whom now, for instance, do the orphans of Michael and Christopher Marasigan turn? The brothers were waylaid last week by two men in the fashion adopted by the police themselves – riding together on a motorcycle, their identities concealed. If Michael, a former newspaper editor and until his death a press agent for the finance secretary, a man of fine reputation all in all, could be so brutally slain – 34 bullet casings were found at the scene – what chances do other people have?  

Deviancy in fact characterizes the policies and workings of the Duterte government: it chooses, for instance, to make war in order to achieve peace – funereal peace, I can only imagine – as in Marawi, among other theaters of conflict; it also prefers to capitulate to Chinese intruders rather than assert the nation’s self-respect and sovereignty over parts of the South China Sea judged by international arbitration as Philippine territory; the president himself “heils” Adolf Hitler and professes to idolize Hitler’s Filipino counterpart – Ferdinand Marcos – and even got the Supreme Court to allow Marcos to be buried a hero.

Indeed, deviancy defines the character of Rodrigo Duterte. Clinical findings solid enough to be admitted into the court records pronounce him: “antisocial, narcissistic”; exhibiting “gross indifference, insensitivity and self-centeredness...[and a] grandiose sense of self-entitlement and manipulative behaviors.”  

If Duterte’s communications secretary and his generals and police officials put up or go along with all his flouting of the universal norms of decency, civility, and morality, if what the polls show is true – that more than 80% approve of the way he is running the country – and if we insist we are a democracy, then we must be a pathological one. – Rappler.com

“If you destroy my country, I will kill you. I will kill you!” 

Tagalugin natin: “Subukan mong wasakin ang bayan ko, papatayin kita. Papatayin kita!”

Malupit ang galit ni Pangulong Duterte sa ilegal na droga. Dapat lang naman. Isang produkto itong ang tanging layunin ay sirain ang katawan, isip, at buhay ng gumagamit; ang magdala ng salot sa pamilya at sa komunidad. 

Kaya naman, tuwing binibitiwan niya ang banta, todo-palakpak ang walang-kamatayang “16 milyon kami” na nagluklok sa kanya sa Malacañang. 

Kaya naman, habang umaakyat sa libo-libo ang pipitsuging drug user at pusher na binabaril sa ulo sa sariling bahay, o bangkay na itinatambak sa bangketa o itinatapon sa dagat, steady ang approval rating ng Pangulo, lalo na sa middle class at nasa alta sosyedad. 

Kaya nakakapanibago na hindi nagbabanta, ni hindi nagmumura, ang Presidente nitong nakaraang dalawang linggo. Back-to-back ang hearings sa Kamara’t Senado tungkol sa P6.4 bilyong halaga ng shabu na ipinuslit ng mga Tsino mula sa China. Nakalusot sa Port of Manila, pero kat’wiran ng Bureau of Customs, nahabol naman daw nang ni-raid nila ang isang bodega sa Valenzuela. ’Yun nga lang, na-contaminate ang ebidensiya, at ngayon ay baka hindi na tanggaping ebidensiya sa korte. 

605 kilos ’yun, high-grade – isa sa pinakamalaking huli sa kasaysayan ng BOC. Malawakang operasyon ito. Sindikato. Hindi basta-basta ang ulo. Kahindik-hindik isipin kung gaano karaming kabataan, pamilya, at barangay ang sisirain nito kung paghati-hatiin na sa tigkakapiranggot na gramo.

Higit sa lahat, isang higanteng dirty finger ito sa matapang nating Pangulo. 

Sabi siguro ng mga Tsino, "Anong subukan kong wasakin ang bayan mo?" Pero eto: ayon sa mismong Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency ng gobyerno, “It’s safe to say that the majority of the meth we have comes from China.” Halos lahat ng 6 na naglalakihang shabu laboratories na nadiskubre sa iba’t ibang bahagi ng bansa sa administrasyong Duterte, Tsino ang nagpapatakbo. 

Sabi rin nila siguro, "Anong papatayin mo ’ko?" Noong Mayo pa nangyari ang smuggling. Kung talagang kumukulo ang dugo sa droga, dapat namasaker na ang Customs bureau, o kaya’y naipatapon na sa Basilan at Sulu ang mga ahente (panakot ’yun sa tiwalang pulis, di ba?). Dapat meron nang non-Filipino speaking Chinese at mga bigating kababayan na naliligo sa sariling dugo sa mga condo at mansiyon nila, o nakatimbwang sa kalye, o nakalutang sa laot. 

Hindi tayo sanay na nagbibigay-daan ang administrasyong ito sa due process. Nagsimula na raw kasi ang imbestigasyon ng Kongreso, kaya hihintayin na lang matapos ito bago poproblemahin kung ano’ng kahihinatnan ni BOC Commissioner Nicanor Faeldon. 

Nagugulumihanan tayo na malamig ang ulo niya sa hepe ng ahensiyang naisahan ng drug smugglers. “Focus on his job of serving the nation in his capacity as head of Customs” umano ang mahinahong payo ng Pangulo sa Customs chief nang magpulong sila sa Malacañang. 

Sabi siguro nina Peter Laviña, Ismael Sueno, at Maia Valdez: “Ay, andaya! Akala ba namin, whiff of corruption lang, sibak na?” 

Oo nga, sabi ng ilang mambabatas, bakit Duterte the Tame ang peg ng ating Chief Executive ngayon?

’Pag gramo lang ng shabu, patay agad. Ito bilyunan, pero ang ingat at ang bait ng gobyerno? Si Senator Chiz Escudero ang nag-point out niyan. Mister President, hindi ka galit sa Customs? Di nga? Sundot naman ni Senator Ping Lacson ito. Kahinahinala ang pag-zipper ng bibig ng Pangulo, sa totoo lang. Magduda na kayo. Ganyan, in so many words, ang inihihirit ni Magdalo Representative Gary Alejano.

Ayaw pa kasi nilang diretsahin ang akusasyon: “Dahil po ba sa direksiyon yata ng anak ninyo tumuturo ang mga testimonya, in public hearings and in private briefings?"

Sa mga pagdinig sa Kongreso, sumingaw ang pangalan ng panganay ng Pangulo, si Davao City Vice Mayor Paolo Duterte. Pinalulusot daw sa Customs ang mga kontrabando kapag ginagamit ang pangalan ni Pulong. 

Naalala tuloy ng publiko ang dating testimonya ng dating pulis Davao na si Arthur Lascañas: meyor pa lang si tatay, namamayagpag na umano sa smuggling operations si anak sa port ng Davao. 

At may lumabas nang retrato na nagpapakitang mukhang dabarkads ng presidential son ang Filipino-Chinese businessman na namagitan sa Customs para sa Tsinong nagpadala ng daan-daang kilong shabu. Pero itinanggi naman ng Vice Mayor ang mga akusasyon at sinabing batay lahat ito sa sabi-sabi at chismis lang.

“If my son was really into it or is in there, all you have to do is to produce the paper…. Just give me an affidavit and I will step down as President of this Republic, and that is my commitment to you now. That is my word,” sabi niya noong Agosto 11. 

Having seen how the President can find excuses the next day for all his bold threats and grand but unfeasible promises the night before, malamang hihingi siya ng kung ano-ano pang patunay, o mag-aakusa siya ng motibong politikal o kriminal, kung sakaling may maghain ng ganoong affidavit sa kanya. 

Hindi siya magre-resign. Hindi siya magagalit. Hindi siya papatay. 

At ang nakababahala ay, bakit tahimik naman tayong sumasakay? – Rappler.com 

Upon reading the news about the the Bautista couple I tweeted: “May I remind everyone, especially the media, that the Bautista children are not news targets. Especially as they are minors. #MediaEthics”.

I kept my comment to a tweet because my counseling experience tells me that to protect the well-being of these children, we should not talk about them at all.

Unfortunately, I am in a quandary. Because we need to talk about what the Bautista children are going through in order to educate ourselves about how to uphold their best interest and the best interest of children in general. So with apologies to this family, I write this article.

Before I begin discussing the issues, I cannot overemphasize that this is not about ascribing blame. It is not about taking the side of any parent or any political group. It is purely an attempt at constructive discussion about a topic that is vital to our society’s development.

Also before I begin, let me point out that the UN Convention on the Rights of the Child defines a child as being 18 years or below. But parents of older children might still want to consider applying these standards to them.

Counseling parents

I wish that I had been able to counsel Ms Patricia Bautista prior to her decision to go to the media. I wish I had been able to counsel Chairperson Andres Bautista prior to his decision to go public with his answers, too.

In my experience, even the most caring parents, even the most media savvy ones cannot anticipate what happens once the frenzy begins.

This is what I would have advised: say nothing about the children.

Even if it is true that parents risk exposing their families only after considering what their children will suffer, even if they do it to protect their children – it is better they say this only in private to the kids and not in public.

Because, once the children are invoked, then they become part of the political battle.

Often in situations where a spouse is seeking separation because of abuse, the abuser makes the children testify against the abused to friends, in court, and in the media. Often the children are motivated to do this because the abuser cajoles or frightens them. Often the abuser convinces the children that it is the abused who is tearing the family apart and their defense of him or her will cause a reconciliation.

It also happens that neither parent is abusive but they end up making political footballs of their children anyway.

But even if it were true that one parent is immoral and the children know that the other parent is the moral one, I would urge the moral parent not to invoke the children.

Even if the issue is not a matter of media and national interest, I urge parents not to make their children take sides and especially not to make their opinions about their parents public. The children can and will make decisions about their parent’s character in line with their emerging capacities. Even at very young ages their judgment is intimate, nuanced, emotional and yet, very often, fair. It is not compatible with the black and white of “this parent good and that parent bad”. This is why it is not good for their psychological well-being to place them in a position where they have to choose between one or the other parent.

The UN Convention gurarantees the right of the child to form their own opinions and express these. But this must be weighed against the over-arching principle also guaranteed in the CRC of doing what is best in the interest of the child. In cases like this, the children’s best interest is served if they do not appear in the public debate.

To help the situation, the public needs to be more discerning. The parent who remains silent about the children is often disadvantaged because we misinterpret that silence. When we make our judgments, consider that the silent one may actually be the more caring one.

Media

Mainstream media has come a long way in the last few decades. Article 3 of the 2007 Broadcast Code of the Philippines places the protection of the child’s privacy as paramount and prohibits the hurtful intrusions (such as ambush interviews) that we used to see in the past.

Of course social media has no code of ethics. My advice to parents who have decided to go to media is to ask their kids to deactivate their social media accounts and to limit social media engagement while the controvery lasts. This is my advice to the adults too. When one is in a crisis, it is all the more important to listen only to one’s conscience and to the counsel of those who you can trust and whose values you share.

But I would refine media practice and ethics further. Don’t even ask about the children. And if the parent/s were the first to mention their children, that does not give media (or anyone) the right to talk about them.

I will make a debatable suggestion. Do not even quote the parents when they talk about their children. Legally they have given media the right to do so. Morally, I urge media not to exercise that legal right.

I also urge public relations practitioners who may be hired by any party to look at their own practices and values. Help your client craft the proper messages. A good practice would be having your principal say, “It is a very difficult time for us now and I urge all parties to respect our privacy” in response to questions about their children.

The general public

Lastly, I urge the public not to comment (whether positive or negative) about the children. In the current situation you hear things like, “she/he should have considered the children”. But there are worse comments like “how could he/she feed her children on dirty money!”

Many of those who say these things mean it to bolster their judgment of the character of one or the other party. Indeed, judging the character of the parties concerned will help us form our opinions on a matter of national interest. The way people treat their children is a major indicator of their character. Thus, the tendency to look at their relationship to their children is quite understandable.

But we haven’t really heard the children, have we? And we cannot speak to their welfare if we do not know what they are feeling or thinking. On the contrary, as I keep pointing out, expressing our opinions is likely to do them harm.

Many do not realize that a child’s human rights includes the right to participate in any action done in their behalf. Again the CRC is quite clear on this. And this includes any verbal statement that anyone makes about them. We cannot speak for them. Not in their name.

Exception and appeal

I will make one final appeal for all children undergoing this situation and for those who will face the same in the future.

The only reason we should speak to anyone about these kids is to tell our own not to judge on the basis of the newspaper reports. We must strongly urge our children not to bully them and instead to reach out to them and support them. Such an action is to the benefit of our children as well. They can use these as opportunities to learn empathy for the suffering other. It will begin their own understanding of how to be critical of media. It will teach them about respecting another’s human rights.

I also urge all schools to upgrade their guidance counseling programs to support children in these types of crisis. I suggest that the school administrations issue clear guidelines to teachers and staff on how to handle the situation. This includes looking out for these kids, creating a sense that they can open up to teachers who will respect their confidence, be neutral and non-judgmental. It includes ensuring that they are not bullied.

These efforts will help prevent tragic outcomes. Most of these children do end up being bullied by their schoolmates and sometimes even their teachers. The learning environment is no longer conducive when it should be a respite from strife. At worst, they stop schooling.

We need to create zones of peace around children in any conflict – whether this be armed, parental, or political. In peace zones the general public does not allow the conflict to occur nor will it participate in the conflict even if provoked. If a combatant tries to enter a peace zone they must do so by dropping their weapons and only to visit in peace. If a combatant enters with partisan or hostile intentions, that is no reason to allow the other faction to enter. Combatants should be escorted out and made to conduct their fight elsewhere. Keep the children away from the fight and keep them safe. – Rappler.com

Sylvia Estrada Claudio, MD, PhD, teaches Women and Development Studies at the College of Social Work and Community Development, University of the Philippines.

Al Gore’s An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power comes at a convenient time. The documentary film, which was released globally on August 4, is the Nobel Peace Prize winner’s latest project in a long-running climate change crusade. Its narrative weaves together both good and bad developments over the past decade, as footage of collapsing polar ice caps and flattened towns in Tacloban, eventually gives way to cutting-edge Texas solar farms, impassioned crowds at the Global Climate March, and a jubilant Paris in December 2015.

The film’s tone is largely hopeful, and plainly at odds with political reality. As the filmmakers took pains to emphasize, not everyone has responded affirmatively to Gore’s urgent call to arms. The question of the moment persists: what does Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris climate accord mean for the rest of the world? What does it mean for the Philippines?

19 against one

In its pursuit of a “healthy planet”, the global community will not be hindered. This was the answer that rang loud and clear at the G20 summit last month, as 19 world leaders stood together against United States President Donald Trump to affirm their commitment to the Paris Agreement. Efforts in the battle against climate change may have a long way to go, but this united front was a triumph for both developed and developing nations.

The Paris Agreement, later lauded as “the world’s greatest diplomatic success”, was adopted unanimously in December 2015. Its goal was to limit the global temperature rise this century to below two degrees above pre-industrial levels. Each country contributed its own target and deadline: among others, then president Barack Obama pledged to reduce US greenhouse gas emissions by 26-28% below 2005 levels by 2025, and the Philippines, to reduce its carbon emissions by 70% by 2030.

Last month, Trump faced backlash when he announced his intention to withdraw from the accord. If finalized, the US will join Nicaragua (which thought the provisions too lenient on developed countries) and Syria (which remains mired in a civil war) as the only nations not party to it.

The annual G20 summit was the first major meeting of world leaders since Trump’s announcement. This year, the governments of 20 leading economies gathered in Hamburg, Germany from July 7-8. As the possibility of the US’ withdrawal loomed over Hamburg Messe, the issue of climate change took centerstage.

Over the two days, the German Chancellor and current G20 President, Angela Merkel, went to great lengths to maintain solidarity during negotiations, while Trump remained glaringly isolated. This discord inevitably manifested in the communiqué, the group’s political declaration.

In the same breath that they proclaimed their “strong commitment to the Paris Agreement” and intention to move “swiftly towards its full implementation”, the rest of the G20 recognized that the US’ priorities clearly lay elsewhere; namely, in the revival of its fossil fuel industry, which Trump believed would bring it economic prosperity.

Worries in the wake

The immediate concern was that Trump had set a precedent for others to wane in their support of the Paris process. Developing nations in particular, some speculated, might be discouraged by the reduced funding that would result from the US’ withdrawal. Article 9 of the Paris Agreement, which was reiterated in the communiqué, obligated developed countries to provide aid to their developing counterparts for use in emission reduction efforts. The absence of the US’ contribution could mean a cut of as much as $3 billion.

The misfortune that did come to pass was that the compromises made to appease the US weakened an already inadequate approach to climate change/the crisis. Pundits considered that the Paris Agreement, for all the good intentions it indicated, left much to be desired.

“Countries’ plans for action…as currently formulated, only take us about one-third of the way on the emissions reductions we need to be on course for a two-degree world,” writes Andrew Norton, director of the International Institute for Environment and Development. The compromises in the G20 communiqué meant that what could have been a call for greater ambition, fell short.

“If you measure [the summit] against what's really necessary, then it's far too weak,” said Niklas Höhne, director of the NewClimate Institute. “Right now, all countries are saying: ‘We are doing what we have proposed, we are not taking steps backwards.’ And that's definitely not sufficient if you look at what really is necessary to save the climate.”

For now, the unity displayed at the G20 summit despite, and perhaps even due to, Trump, seems to have tempered these concerns. The few countries most in danger of being influenced by the US’ brazen move – Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Russia and Turkey – ultimately backed the accord. Moreover, Höhne said, “What's more important are the other major emitters like India, China, India, Brazil, Mexico, South Korea – and they have all been very positive and are continuing with their part.”

The return of the prodigal American?

The hope is that the United States’ absence is temporary, which is not far-fetched. For one, Trump’s economic reasons are no longer compelling, if they ever were. In his speech delivered on June 1, he claimed that staying in the Paris accord could pose “serious obstacles” to maximizing America’s natural energy reserves and thereby hinder its economy.

Alden Meyer of the US Union of Concerned Scientists dispels this, asserting that there is an “accelerating shift away from polluting fossil fuels towards a global economy powered by clean, renewable energy.” Unlike the fossil fuel industry, clean energy is estimated at over $20 trillion and is “providing good jobs that can put people to work and revitalize American manufacturing, in ‘blue’ and ‘red’ states,” writes Robert Redford, a director and trustee of the Natural Resources Defense Council.

Pressure from the domestic American and international communities continues to mount. Just days after Trump’s speech, over 1,200 American cities, states, universities and businesses signed and submitted “We Are Still In” to the United Nations, articulating their pursuit of the Paris goals.

In early July, this was followed by “America’s Pledge”, which provides a concrete framework for state and non-state actors to track their emissions. Initiatives like these affirm American society’s – if not Trump’s – commitment to the Paris climate accord. As for the rest of the world, the marked 19-1 division during the G20 summit said it all.

Perhaps most importantly, Trump cannot withdraw yet. In a press release issued last Friday, August 11, the US State Department announced that it had formally notified the UN of its decision, but recognized that it is presently not “eligible” to act on it.

Under Article 28, withdrawal from the Paris Agreement is not permitted for the first 3 years after the accord comes into effect, and thereafter, is subject to a one-year notice period. This brings the earliest possible date of withdrawal to November 2020. Alternatively, Trump could withdraw the US from the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC) effective immediately, but with monumentally graver implications.

In the interim, the US’ political obligation remains, and Trump may yet be convinced to stay. He is open to “re-engaging” the accord if more America-friendly terms can be negotiated, although such concessions seem unlikely given the vehement opposition previously expressed by the leaders of France, Germany, and Italy.

Nevertheless, French President Emmanuel Macron is optimistic about swaying the enfant terrible. “He told me that he would try to find a solution in the coming months,” Macron said, following Trump’s mid-July state visit to France. “We talked in detail about what could enable him to come back into the Paris accords.”

Better without the US

Coincidentally, the US’ break from the climate change scene may be exactly what the rest of the world needs. The issues most important to climate justice would benefit from a temporary US withdrawal, as issues like adaptation, climate finance, technology transfer, and loss and damage could be more easily resolved without the US at the negotiating table.

In the race against environmental degradation, the absence of Trump’s contrarianism would allow vital ground to be more quickly gained. However, this must be balanced with the need to continue to involve American career diplomats and officials in the process to pave the way for the US’ eventual re-entry. Judging from the press release, the US is only more than willing to do so, and intends to “continue to participate in international climate change negotiations and meetings…to protect US interests and ensure all future policy options remain open to the administration.”

The unintended but most auspicious by-product of Trump’s announcement was a world deliberately united against climate change: save for Trump, all the G20 members acceded to the communiqué. With one voice, they declared, “The Leaders of the other G20 members state that the Paris Agreement is irreversible.”

Although US participation will always be preferred, the communiqué is proof that an effective climate change agreement can exist without it. “The US president’s weak attempts to capsize the climate movement have failed,” observed Mohamed Adow, international climate lead at Christian Aid. “The rest of the world is moving ahead.”

Everyone’s battle

Climate change has long been treated as a tug-of-war between developed nations, dictated by first-world politics and ivory tower planning. The stark reality is that it is everyone’s battle, most especially that of developing nations.

In recent years, the Philippines has been among those who have taken this to heart and stepped up their efforts. Following the Super Typhoon Yolanda (Haiyan) tragedy, it successfully pushed for the establishment of the Warsaw International Mechanism on Loss and Damage at the UNFCCC Conference of Parties 2013, and in 2016, oversaw the Climate Vulnerable Forum’s adoption of the Manila-Paris Declaration as forum chair.

When President Rodrigo Duterte signed the Paris Agreement, Senator Loren Legarda christened it one of the Philippine government’s “shining achievements” as it “allows our country access to international climate finance mechanisms and to acquire support from developed countries for adaptation, mitigation, technology development and transfer, and capacity building.”

The immediate challenge for developing nations is to take robust action to maximize these resources. As Duterte told the crowd at his recent State of the Nation Address, now more than ever, “The protection of the environment…is non-negotiable.”

When a lone mutineer threatened to sabotage the climate change battle effort, the global community – in the form of an irrevocable communiqué – proved that would not be tolerated. To make good on its word, it must continue to build momentum towards a holistic and effective approach to climate change.

These efforts will hopefully see the US’ return, but regardless. Climate change is too big an issue for us to allow one country to hold the global community hostage and paralyzed in inaction. Fortunately, the world at the G20 summit didn’t have to be told. 

An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power hits theaters in the Philippines in late August. Watch it, be disturbed by it, and speak truth to power: to our government, to our coal and fossil fuel-dependent industries, and to our fellow citizens. Let’s fight as if the survival of our islands depend on it. In fact, it does. – Rappler.com

Tony La Viña is former dean of the Ateneo School of Government. Hannah Tablan is a final year law student at King's College London. This past summer, she was a Kaya Collaborative Fellow assigned to the Manila Observatory under the tutelage of Dean La Viña.

Of course people are mad. After several years of dependency on Uber and Grab as an alternative to our decrepit public transport system, recent events have rendered Metro Manila’s middle class commuters stranded – literally and figuratively.

Uber has been suspended by the LTFRB for defying an order to stop accrediting more drivers, leading patrons to take part in the newfound – and very pricey – bloodsport that is grabbing a super-surged Grab, or trudging along in Dickensian queues for trains, jeeps, and buses.

If you’ve long felt safe in the knowledge that you can get from Point A to B with the least amount of suffering, having that taken away from you can only make you feel cheated and wronged. On social media alone, just saying anything remotely negative towards ride sharing apps is a death wish; whole droves of netizens will shame you for even daring to think these apps are anything but a godsend. Moreover, the LTFRB has been cursed out and disparaged more than ever, labeled as enemies of technological progress. 

What the madding crowd fails to acknowledge, however, is that this issue has more than one villain. We tend to take the good vs evil concept too simplistically, content with the idea that if one is bad (LTFRB), then the other must be good (Uber), and that at the end of this issue, only one must prevail. But let’s face it: as messed up as the LTFRB may be (and its incompetence, at this point, is well documented), Uber is also very much a culprit in this chaos.

It is one thing to disrupt the norm to do things better; it is a whole other thing to circumvent an order on the pretense of being a disruptor, and at the expense not only of frazzled commuters, but of Uber drivers and the loved ones they financially support. 

Uber is not being hard-headed as some kind of power-to-the-people, Robin Hood-style derring-do. Uber kept accrediting drivers because it is a business, and its financial success depends on having as many drivers as possible plowing the streets. If Uber truly was interested in people’s wellbeing, as its marketing strongly suggests, then it would not have put the livelihoods of Uber drivers in danger.

Yes, these drivers are not technically under Uber’s employ the way employment is normally understood – a loophole that reveals disruption’s dark side – but the company is still willfully ignoring the fact that many of these drivers depend on the app as their sole source of income, and are putting these men and women on the chopping block ahead of themselves. Unfortunately, many Uber patrons gloss over the company’s bullheadedness and this brazen exploitation of technicalities, because it is all too easy to just focus on how the app benefits their commute in the short term. 

If there is any party citizens should be siding with on this issue, then, it is neither the LTFRB nor Uber. It should be with the public. And the public is certainly not limited to middle class commuters who could afford to shell out a few hundred pesos a day to travel faster and more comfortably than others. Our energies would be far better directed not at idly demonizing a long-problematic agency, or defending a company that essentially sees us as bags of money, but at clamoring for an honest-to-goodness middle ground, where public transport is greatly augmented through sustainable, accessible tech. 

If we continue to push for “solutions” that only benefit a fraction of the public, then we continue to be part of the problem. Yes, fixing the catastrophe that is the Metro Manila commute is easier said than done, but we have to suck it up and understand that addressing serious issues entails a lot of time and effort and cooperation. It is not going to be easy; that’s just how it is, and the sooner we accept this and get the process going, the sooner we can see results that actually help for the long haul. 

The culture of disruption remains welcome, and clearly inevitable. But entities that thrive on it are neither foolproof nor absolute, and the last thing we need disrupted is our ability to call out bullshit when we see it. – Rappler.com

It was 12 in the afternoon. Aling Mary, 62, was pacing the shores of Aplaya in Baseco Compound, Manila.

She has not eaten for days and was already exhausted with unsuccessful scavenging for food in garbage piles. Like other older adults in the area, Aling Mary was not your textbook definition of a lola (grandmother) on her rocking chair telling stories to her grandchildren.

In fact, just like the 240 older adults that I have interviewed, Aling Mary was actively engaged in economic activities such as collecting tirtir (recycled food from garbage), retaso (discarded parts of vegetables), and tahong (mussels from tje Pasig river) to ensure that she and her son, who has a developmental disorder, would have food for the day. (READ: Without pension, senior citizens forced to continue working)

That day, however, was different for Aling Mary. That day, her aging body gave up. She was buried in an unmarked grave. The Department of Social Welfare and Development took custody of her son.

Her shanty was torn apart by neighbors who took claim of her 10-square meter land, her home for 20 years.

The United Nations Population Fund estimated that the number of Filipinos aged 60 years old and above will reach a total of 23.63 million by 2050.

Demographers called the rise in the population of older adults as “population aging” and has been observed in the Global North (Northern American Region, East Asia, Australia, and Western Europe) for the past decades.

Some of the key issues that aging societies face are unbalanced ratio of working and dependent citizens, lack of infrastructural support, and intergenerational gap. These were addressed in the Global North through inclusive policies and programs like post-retirement employment, comprehensive pension and health care, and assisted living arrangements. 

Similar to other Global South countries, the Philippines’ older adult population is faced with issues that transcend desires for self-actualization as it combats the threats of food insecurity, house tenure, and health care inaccessibility. Their vulnerability to these threats are predicated and exacerbated by their concept of malasakit or compassion for their households. (WATCH: Nanay Ely, the 82-year-old crocheter of Tayuman)

Too often in my conversations with them would they tell me that they have foregone their medical needs to buy a meal for their grandchildren. Too often have they gone hungry to give their grandchildren a bigger meal portion.

Aling Rosie, 58, recounted how she has constantly missed or lessened her food consumption so her grandchildren could have more. “Mas importante na sila ang makakain kaysa ako (It's more important that they eat well instead of me)."

Apart from food scavenging, older adults in the area also participate in other diskarte (economic activities) like pagbabawang (peeling garlic), selling cooked food, and other home-based services like laundry, cleaning, and babysitting. A typical daily income for peeling a 25 kilograms of garlic is P50.

Since most of the older adults I have spoken with have not completed formal education, their ability to access formal employment was low.

Of the 240 interviewees, there were only 25 who have pension from SSS which they use to contribute to the needs of their household. In some cases, this contribution is nearly non-voluntary as older adults secure their place in the household with this expected monthly financial source.

An older adult who has no other relative has narrated to me how she has informally arranged accommodation with her peer by giving them access to her SSS pension debit card. "Wala naman mag-aalaga sa akin kasi 'di naman ako nakapag-asawa. Mas mainam na may kumukupkop sa akin.” 

(Since I did not get married, no one will look after me. It's better that I have this arrangement so that I am assured that I have people who would take care of me.)

With the Sustainable Development Goals promoting the slogan, “Leave no one behind,” a call for a more inclusive policy for social development remains in our country. The provisions accorded by 3  laws – Republic Acts 7432 (Senior Citizen's Act), 9994 (Expanded Senior Citizen's Act of 2010), and 10645 (PhilHealth Insurance of Senior Citizens) – allowed this sector to receive benefits that range from discounts in purchase of basic products to PhilHealth coverage. 

However, access to most of these benefits remain class-based given the required documents that the poor older adult would not usually have such as birth certificate, employment records, and tax receipts. Of the 240 interviewees, only 56 had a senior citizen card and only 27 were qualified to receive the P1,500 quarterly stipend from the government.  

Aling Mary did not have a senior citizen card nor was she qualified to receive the indigent stipend. As she always told me when I ask her to secure her benefits, “Unahin ko muna pangkain namin. Kailangan madiskarte ka. 'Yung kulang, bahala na si Lord."

(I’ll prioritize securing our food over applying for those documents. One needs to know a lot of strategies. When these strategies fail, God will provide). – Rappler.com 

Maria Carinnes P. Alejandria-Gonzalez is the Lead Research Associate for the Social Health Studies of the Center for Social Sciences and Education of the University of Santo Tomas. She is currently an Assistant Professor in the Department of Sociology of UST where she teaches Social Demography, Rehabilitative Sociology, and Environmental Sociology.

Alam kong matagal nang na-set ang lakad
Pero grabe kasi ang traffic, hindi umuusad.
Alam kong malapit lang naman 'yan
Pero paano kung umulan?
Alam kong baka wala nang kinabukasan
Pero ang pagkakaibigan nati'y wala namang kamatayan.
At tanggap ko na talagang ganito ako
Mahal kita bes, pero mahal ko rin ang kama ko.

– Rappler.com 

Artwork by Shellette Gipa
Text by Nile Villa

#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.

World Humanitarian Day brings the world together to rally support for people affected by humanitarian crises and pay tribute to aid workers who help them.

As fighting in Marawi City rages on, and as global displacement hits record high, the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR) places the spotlight on 4 Filipino humanitarian workers on the front lines of protecting families on the run from conflict, violence, and persecution: 

Cliff Alvarico

Being a humanitarian connects directly to me, as a human being. Perhaps nothing can be more fulfilling than being able to demonstrate compassion to the people we serve. This must have been why I have been a humanitarian worker for nearly two decades now, the last 7 years of which have been with UNHCR, the UN Refugee Agency. 

I serve as the Program Officer of the Philippine office, and since the conflict in Marawi broke out nearly 3 months ago, I concurrently headed our satellite office in Iligan City. 

Whenever we do Protection Monitoring in evacuation camps in Iligan City and other municipalities neighboring Marawi City, we provide a listening ear to families who have fled the fighting. We capture what they say and elevate their concerns to the proper forum. 

Every day, aid workers put their lives on the line to provide life-saving assistance to underserved families affected by conflict. However, humanitarians worldwide are increasingly being targeted. In 2016, for example, there were attacks against health workers and facilities in 20 conflict-affected countries, resulting in 863 medical personnel being killed or injured. 

Another challenge that humanitarians face is accessing people affected by conflict. 

At an IDP site in South Sudan, we found this child who was severely malnourished. I coordinated with our health counterparts and when we came back, the child had already died. There are a lot more stories like these because aid workers are unable to move, and move quickly, due to lack of access. 

Despite these challenges, being a humanitarian worker brings me contentment and fulfillment that no other job would. 

"Whoever saves one life saves the world entire." This Oscar Schindler quote keeps me going as we humanitarians rise to the challenge of supporting people affected by humanitarian crises. 

Aisah Disoma 

Since fighting erupted in Marawi last May, my typical day revolves around listening to the stories of internally displaced persons (IDPs) and asking about their conditions so we can ensure a targeted response to their needs. 

What I find especially fulfilling here is the solidarity built with these displaced families. For them, finding a listening ear is already a big thing. An elderly lady told me, in the Maranao language, "I thank Allah for you because you are able to hear my story." This came to me as a surprise, because what we consider a minor task is a major thing for them. Talking about their ordeal also serves as a debriefing for them, a step towards recovering from the trauma caused by having to flee violence and armed conflict. 

Though I find this job worthwhile and very fulfilling, one thing that makes it tough is that I am a Maranao myself. I am among the hundreds of thousands who have been uprooted from our homes in Marawi City. I live with my family in Iligan, and we are part of the home-based IDP population. 

Whenever they (IDPs) tell me their stories, I sometimes realize I am also one of the characters. We sing the same tune and share the same hope that we will be able to return to our homes and live in peace. Serving with UNHCR after Typhoon Yolanda was tough, but this time, it’s tougher because I know the people here and I actually share their plight. 

I have never imagined that as a humanitarian worker, I myself would be displaced. But now, I am both an aid worker and an IDP; the responsibility weighs heavily because I represent UNHCR and also my fellow Maranao. 

Brenda Escalante 

During a harsh winter in 2015, I was deployed to Serbia for 3 months to help in the Mediterranean humanitarian crisis. 

One of my tasks was to provide refugees with information about their rights as individuals and asylum seekers. This information helps them make informed decision for their families. It also protects them from abuse and exploitation along the route. Extremely vulnerable individuals were prioritized to ensure they get immediate attention and care . 

It was difficult seeing people fleeing from war, conflict, persecution every day – seemingly without an end in sight and without clear solution of what will happen to them. It broke my heart to see families, especially women and children, being pushed back because of their nationality. 

The most rewarding part of my job is being inspired by people’s resilience, courage, and determination to prevail over their difficulties to provide a dignified life for their families. I also met a Syrian mother who was traveling with her husband and children.

She spoke in Arabic but admitted in a hushed voice that they come from the Bedouin tribe and had to keep their identity secret out of fear of discrimination from other refugees. She and her family had UNHCR registration papers showing they are Syrian refugees. She said they were heading to Germany to seek asylum for the future of their children and medical care for her husband. I was totally inspired by her strength and determination to secure the future of her family. 

Every day, I encounter many stories from refugees like her. Stories of suffering, persecution, insecurity, war and conflict, and being on the run. And yet hope springs eternal for them; there is always a reason to survive and hope. 

Corazon Lagamayo

For more than 6 years now, war has become Syrians' daily alarm. Being on the run has become their way of life. The only thing they know now is how to flee their homes to escape death. The pain of constantly losing their loved ones and properties, eventually made them forget how to live. 

Currently, I am in Damascus, Syria deployed as Information Management Officer for Shelter and Non-Food Items (NFI) Sectors. I used to serve in the Information Management unit of UNHCR in the Philippines. 

Here in Damascus, I keep an eye in the distribution of core relief items and shelter to support internally displaced families inside Syria. I help keep UNHCR's sector partners well-informed on available stocks, distribution plans, and their overall achievement to ensure complementarity of efforts. 

Understanding the political landscape of a humanitarian response is important. This, I believe, satisfies our ethos as humanitarian workers to be impartial hence balancing first-hand information we gather and making it work for the people that we serve. At the end of the day, any primary data collection initiative should adhere to the Do No Harm principle of humanitarian assistance. 

Despite the challenges at work, being a humanitarian is a very fulfilling job and mission. The little impact of my work, both tangible and intangible, makes me alive. After all, this is not for me nor for UNHCR; this is for those families who remain displaced in their makeshift tents waiting for somebody to recognize their plight, alleviate their suffering, restore their hopes, and help them regain their dignity. – Rappler.com 

This World Humanitarian Day, UNHCR invites you to share its commitment to provide life-saving aid to displaced families, protect their rights, restore their hopes, and help them rebuild their lives in safety and dignity. Your gift helps UNHCR and its staff across the world empower the families it serves. Support UNHCR’s work here. 

Cliff Alvarico (center) is UNHCR Philippines' Program Officer and concurrently heads the organization’s response to the Marawi displacement crisis. 

Aisah Disoma serves as the Field Associate for Protection at the UNHCR Philippines. 

Brenda Escalante (center) served as UNHCR Philippines’ national protection officer for six years before being deployed to South Sudan. She was also briefly assigned to Serbia in 2015. 

Corazon Lagamayo is the Information Management Officer at the UNHCR Shelter and Non-Food Items (NFI) Sectors, Syria. 

The unfolding drama surrounding LTFRB’s regulation of ride-hailing services (especially Uber) is of particular interest to teachers of economics: it’s a perfect illustration of the basic model of supply and demand.

Supply and demand is taught on Day One of any basic economics class for two good reasons. First, it explains why prices go up during times of relative scarcity and down during times of relative plenty.

Second – and perhaps more importantly – supply and demand arms students with a simple yet powerful framework by which to understand government intervention in markets, and how such policies can improve or worsen society’s welfare.

In this article we use supply and demand to explain the fascinating economics of Uber and Grab, and predict the likely impact of LTFRB’s regulations on both their riders and drivers.

Regulating the number of Uber and Grab vehicles

Each Uber or Grab ride is mutually beneficial to the rider who hails it and the driver who supplies it. Otherwise, they wouldn’t bother transacting with each other on the apps.

So when the government prohibits such rides – partially or totally – it eliminates such gains from trade. Riders and drivers can’t benefit from the rides they can’t take, and this reduces social welfare.

This is what happens when the LTFRB limits the number of Uber and Grab vehicles, whether by imposing quotas or prohibitions.

Consider Uber’s one-month suspension that started on August 15. Beyond the many angry comments, hashtags, and memes that it inspired on Facebook and Twitter, the welfare losses from such suspension could prove huge in monetary terms.

In the US, one study found that UberX generated about $6.8-billion worth of consumer welfare in 2015 alone.

No such study yet exists for the Philippines. But given the hundreds of thousands of rides that don’t happen anymore because of the suspension, the losses for riders and drivers could easily amount to several millions of pesos daily.

Regulating 'surge pricing'

Market prices orchestrate the decisions of consumers and producers. In the case of Uber and Grab, riders want to hail vehicles when prices are low, while drivers want to ply the streets when prices are high (or “surge”).

Governments worldwide are particularly keen to regulate “surge pricing.” It is often taken as a form of price gouging, akin to what happens when prices of basic commodities rise during times of short supply (think Yolanda or Marawi).

In the previous Christmas season, the LTFRB warned Uber and Grab against these “unreasonable” price surges that “take advantage” of people.

But far from abusing people, this “dynamic pricing” mechanism – afforded by algorithms – lies at the heart of the dependability of Uber and Grab. By allowing prices to rise and fall with changes in supply and demand, riders can reliably hail vehicles whenever, wherever.

Figure 1 below shows surge pricing in action. Notice the rise of driver supply (green) in response to a rise in demand (red). Surge pricing makes sure that demand always meets supply, and a similar phenomenon occurs whenever it suddenly rains or it’s rush hour in Metro Manila.

Figure 1. UberX supply rises to meet higher demand. Source: Hall, Kendrick, and Nosko (2015).

Tinkering with dynamic pricing – by imposing a price ceiling beyond which prices can’t surge – will not just diminish the reliability of Uber and Grab, but also prolong wait times. Entrants that lack dynamic pricing altogether (such as taxis using the new Micab) are also therefore unlikely to match the availability of Uber and Grab vehicles.

To see the effect of price controls, one need only look at the first day of Uber’s recent suspension. Bookings for Grab rides jumped by 10% to 15%, and Grab managers responded by capping their surge rates at 1.4 (meaning their rates can’t go beyond 1.4 times the regular rates).

But the effects of such a binding “price ceiling” are well-known in Econ 101: It creates excess demand, where demand exceeds supply.

In Grab’s case, more riders were willing to hail rides than there were Grab vehicles on the road, resulting in a shortage of vehicles and longer wait times. Grab wanted to help riders with this surge cap, but ended up making them wait longer for their rides.

Regulating work hours

LTFRB also came up with a proposal to impose “minimum work hours” on Uber and Grab drivers. They reasoned that the franchises they issue will be put to waste if many drivers don’t ply the streets at least a certain number of hours per week.

But again, this proposal ignores the centrality of supply and demand in Uber and Grab’s operations: With dynamic pricing, both prices and the number of cars on the road have to adjust freely to reflect supply and demand.

During peak hours – when demand is high – prices rise to incentivize drivers to go out and drive. By contrast, during off-peak hours – when demand is low – prices go down, which turns off most drivers, many of whom choose not to drive.

The net effect is that ride-hailing vehicles typically have higher “capacity utilization rates” than taxis. Simply put, Uber and Grab drivers are far likelier than taxi drivers to ply the streets with passengers in their cars.

In a 2016 paper, two economists confirmed this when they looked at UberX in 5 American cities in 2015. Figure 2 shows that, in Los Angeles, UberX was 58% more efficient than taxis; in Seattle, 41%.

Figure 2: Capacity utilization rate for taxi and UberX drivers in Los Angeles and Seattle. Source: Cramer and Krueger (2016). Capacity utilization rate = percent of miles driven with a passenger.

Again, no similar study yet exists for the Philippines. But if the LTFRB requires Uber and Grab drivers to work minimum hours, supply and demand tells us their vehicles will likely become idler on the road.

Heed the law of supply and demand

One might argue that, in all this, the LTFRB – with all its “draconian” and “antiquated” policies – is just doing its job. On the first day of Uber’s recent suspension, motoring journalist James Deakin said on Facebook, “rules are rules.”

However, what is illegal is not necessarily bad economics, and what is legal is not necessarily good economics. The letter of the law is no excuse for LTFRB to spawn a flurry of discretionary policies that completely ignore (and even negate) the most basic lessons of economics.

To make sure that there are enough rides when people need them, don’t impose caps on surge rates. To make Uber and Grab operations more efficient, don’t impose minimum work hours. To improve the welfare of the riding public, don’t kill a new industry that many people have come to love and depend on.

The LTFRB can impose all the orders and decrees it wants, but it cannot repeal the law of supply and demand. Try as it might, it will be as successful as the proverbial king who commanded the waves to retreat. – Rappler.com

The author is a PhD candidate at the UP School of Economics. His views are independent of the views of his affiliations. Follow JC on Twitter: @jcpunongbayan. 

If you can bring yourself to believe Rodrigo Duterte – which is proving more and and more difficult to do because he’s proving himself more and more unstable – this nation has been condemned to poverty.

Sixteen million Filipinos did in fact believe his promise to precisely deliver the nation from poverty, and in May last year gave him the decisive popular vote to lead it for the next 6 years. They believed his diagnosis of its elemental malaise – drugs – and they believed his prescription – kill.

“Until all the drug dealers and addicts are dead,” he said, “we cannot move forward.” And so, as soon as he took office in July, he sent out his police to kill – for national redemption.

Naturally, the poor, who have seen no improvement in their lot for generations, made up the majority of his supporters – they liked a quick-fix leadership, and had become so desperate they were prepared to forget that not very long ago (1972-1986) they had been set even further back under that precise sort of leadership, that of Ferdinand Marcos, an idol of Duterte’s, as it happened.

Duterte did attract some following from the definitely not poor, but it’s difficult to tell why; apparently, not unlike an audience vicariously taken with perverse theater, some of them were charmed by his aberrant character, routinely manifest in a blustery language accentuated by sexist allusions and a favorite cuss phrase. Actually a not uncommon expression, that phrase is benign, meaningless, in its common utterance, but, in Duterte’s public speechmaking, it is crisply articulated and unmistakably aimed and ill-willed: it’s a phrase that debases mothers – the pope’s own mother once got it.

In any case, Duterte’s well-heeled backers are well hedged against whatever costs his bizarre brand of presidency might bring, unlike the poor, who in fact have borne these costs. His war against drugs says it all.

Thousands of lives have been lost in this war at the hands of either the police or, in a differentiation strictly demanded by the government, “vigilantes,” although if indeed operating on their own, these vigilantes could only have been inspired as well by Duterte’s exhortations. Scarcely any among these victims were drug producers or suppliers of any consequence; they were, rather, small fry, forced by the circumstances of poverty to use and peddle drugs, yet ending up dead none the richer for it.

Duterte first asked that his war be given 3 months, then asked for 3 months more, then asked for until the end of his first year, then for until the end of his term. Having predicated the first step toward national progress on the success of his war, he was saying to not expect to see that first step taken under his leadership.

And, now, suddenly, at the end of his first year, he admits – although without the slightest hint of humility, as only may be expected of a clinically certified narcissist – that the job can’t be done in one presidential term. In other words, he can’t do it, but surely he prefers to be understood as being the only one who, given a longer term, can do it.

He says he has finally identified the root problem – no, it’s not poverty; it’s elementary geography: an archipelago of 7,100 islands, the Philippines has a coastline too long to be patrolled against the smugglers who sneak in the drugs. How Duterte’s newly learned geography lesson informs his drug-war strategy he does not say, but I imagine the issue is complicated by diplomacy: the drugs come mostly from China, and he’s afraid to antagonize China.       

In the meantime, he continues to fight his war, and fight it with greater intensity but with the same dubious purpose and strategy – kill all 4 million drug dealers and users and save the nation.  In merely 3 days of the week now ending, his war accounted for an average of around 25 kills a day, higher than ever. Elementary arithmetic could have shown him, too, that, at that rate under constant conditions, it will require more than 400 years to kill his 4 million and win his war.

Conceivably, anyway, greater frenzy and, consequently, more indiscriminateness attend the intensified war. A scandalous case involved 17-year-old Kian Loyd delos Santos, an 11th-grader from Caloocan City. Witnesses, their words validated by CCTV images, tell his story:

Kian happens to be in the wrong place at the wrong time. Out of curiosity, he picks up some stuff – supposedly drugs – disposed of on the run by someone eluding the police. The pursuers vent their frustration on Kian. They grab him, hand him a gun, order him to run and, as he obeys desperately, in tears, knowing for sure he’s running for his life, gun him down.

Yet Duterte’s servile police chief could find it in himself to try to be cute: he says the people should be grateful to know that, as evidenced by all those thousands of corpses, the police don’t sleep on the job.

Oh, don’t we wish they did! – Rappler.com

On August 15, 2017, in one big sweep, 32 drug suspects were killed by the Philippine National Police (PNP) officers in the province of Bulacan. That day has the dubious recognition of having the most number of deaths in a single day in the continuing war on drugs.

Dubbed “one-time, big-time” by the Bulacan Provincial Police, it was heartily praised by President Rodrigo Duterte as an efficient implementation of his order. In jest, he said that he wanted more “32 deaths a day” like this. And like clockwork, the police responded with 26 more deaths in Manila, 17 in Cavite, 4 in Caloocan, and 2 in Marikina two days after. One included the death an innocent Grade 11 teenager, Kian Lloyd Delos Santos, who dreamt of becoming a professional police officer.

The police have now become the personal killers of President Duterte. Responding to his call for monetary awards, they have willingly embraced their roles as executioners. The police have now become systematic and systemic in their killings. It is no longer an individual but rather an institutional engagement. It marks the death of policing as a profession in the Philippines.

When the Philippine Public Safety College (PPSC) took control of the Philippine National Police Academy (PNPA) and the Philippine National Training Institute (PNTI) in 1991, the main goal was to professionalize the police services. The PNPA serves as the premiere academy which trains the future commissioned officer corps with its rigorous 4-year program. The PNTI, on the other hand, serves as the 6-month training center for the non-commissioned officers and requires its applicants to be graduates of a 4-year bachelor’s degree prior to admission.

In these two academic centers, cadets were instructed to follow the rule of law, to respect due process, and to accord suspects their rights. They were specifically mentored on the rules of engagement, the protocols on the use of deadly force, the approaches to situational control, the mechanisms to preserve forensic evidence and other state of the art and lawful investigation techniques.

A continuing ladderized education program was also instituted to upgrade their managerial skills and to popularize the use of merit in the promotion system. These upgraded training and educational requirements, coupled with the introduction of modern policing concepts like “community policing”, “comp-stat policing”, “problem-oriented policing”, "smart-policing”, “human rights-based approach policing”, “gender-sensitivity”, “child-friendly”, “environmental policing”, and others, have gradually gained traction in the PNP.

Slowly, but surely, police officers were becoming more professionalized, more responsive to citizen complaints, and more effective in their response to crime. In due time, young professionalized police officers would refuse the orders of older higher-ranked police officers to commit human rights abuses or to engage in corrupt practices.

These inspired efforts toward professionalization stemmed from the nefarious state of the police after years of serving as Martial Law implementers. For more than two decades, the police worked with impunity – they brutalized citizens who aired their political dissent against the dictator and they were treated as personal henchmen of the local mayors. The culture of impunity created during the Martial Law period was deeply ingrained, such that, the post-Marcos innovations, though making a headway, were continually frustrated.

Coupled with the predatory nature of the political elites, which, unfortunately, were untouched by the post-EDSA revolution, the local politicians continually used the police as their personal henchmen. Despite years of innovations and training, the police force still suffered from inefficiency, corruption, and inequity.

Many police officers had low morale, as they seemingly could not implement their roles as protectors of citizens from crimes. A few police officers themselves engaged in drug-dealing and other organized crime. Additionally, the police, as an institution, was continually criticized and maligned for bungling cases and the human rights abuses committed by their erring individual members. These gargantuan problems notwithstanding, police reform instituted after the downfall of the Marcos regime was headed in the right direction. The trend was toward the elimination of scalawags.

The ascension of Rodrigo Duterte to the presidency has re-directed and destroyed the gains of police reforms in the past 30 years. Powered by the moralistic belief that drug use had corrupted Philippine society, President Duterte had coopted the people’s frustration against the criminal justice system and used it to implement a personalistic and haphazard vision of reform.

While he correctly understood that the police force is weak due to the stranglehold of local politicians, he nevertheless gave them a license to kill without following appropriate police procedures. While he correctly understood that the police force is corrupt due to the frustrated efforts toward reforms, he nonetheless used these same corrupt police officers to physically eliminate his perceived problem – the drug users – using the same corrupt means.

The long-suffering and long-criticized police officers suddenly found meaning in their police work, though clearly ill-advised – they can now brutally kill a town mayor who, for years, had maligned their occupation. Police morale is high, though clearly misguided – they can count on a president who promised immunity while they aggressively and violently performed their perceived righteous duties as police officers.

While we cannot begrudge the intentions of the President, a drug-free and crime-free Philippines, he has transformed the police into the biggest criminal institution in the Philippines. Professional police officers, those who were successfully trained and educated in the proper legal and moral police work, are stymied by the sudden but mistaken boost of morale of their fellow police officers.

Instructors and mentors in the PPSC, PNPA and PNTI can only lament this in frustration – these are not what they taught in the academy and training center. The top brass of the PNP, those who have remaining qualms about where the PNP is headed, are intimidated; else they will be transferred to low-prestige assignments, bypassed in promotions, or suspected of being drug protectors themselves.

Individual police officers are either forced to quit the police profession or to join the slaughter of their fellow Filipinos. While there are many good men and women in the PNP, product of years of painstaking reforms, they cannot do anything about the moral erosion of their profession. Philippine policing is systemically and systematically perverted. Filipino taxes are used as salaries of the organized scalawags.

The Filipino people have the misguided belief that this is the rebirth of Filipino policing. Unfortunately, this is far from the truth. This is the death of policing as a profession in the Philippines. – Rappler.com

The author teaches Comparative Criminology and Criminal Justice at Southern Illinois University. In 2014, he conducted a survey on the state of police professionalism in the Philippines. He also regularly conducts training for the police and other law enforcement agencies on a voluntary service. He can be reached at raymundenarag@gmail.com.

The last few days may be a grim milestone in the war on drugs. In less than 4 days, beginning August 15, police anti-drug squads slew 32 alleged drug pushers in Bulacan and 49 in Metro Manila, for a total of 81 kills. These days may well be the bloodiest in the one-year-old campaign. But what made these days particularly horrific was the execution in Caloocan of 17-year-old Kian Loyd delos Santos, who was dragged by police in full view of CCTV cameras, given a pistol by his captors and told to fire it, and then shot.

Three police officers implicated in the execution have been relieved of their duties. But can there be any doubt that the real culprit is the man in Malacañang, who has, in so many past statements, given the police license to kill? In one recorded instance, on March 14 of this year, he offered immediate pardon to any policeman convicted of killing people with impunity "so you can go after the people who brought you to court."

True to form

True to form, the response of President Duterte to the escalating bloodshed that is deeply troubling many was to commend the Bulacan police and express his wish that 32 more people in the province would be killed. Later, the President lashed out at Commission on Human Rights Chairman Chito Gascon, calling him "ulol na mestizo" (crazy half-breed), and threatened to order the police to shoot human rights activists.

If there is any doubt remaining that Duterte will not let up on his bloody crusade, they have been banished. At the rate people are being killed, the number of victims at the end of 6 years could reach 60,000. This would easily make the Duterte drug massacre the third worst campaign of extermination in Southeast Asia's recent history, after the Khmer Rouge genocide in 1975-78 and the anti-communist bloodbath in Indonesia in 1965-66.

When the President said last October that some 20,000 to 30,000 more people might need to be killed, many laughed off his words as another case of what they saw as Duterte's propensity for hyperbole. They are no longer laughing, or at least some of them aren't (since Duterte still has a sizable following of blind followers from the middle class who would follow him to hell).

Towards dictatorship

And if there is any doubt that he plans to stay in power for more than one term, the President's recent comments about victory in the drug war necessitating more than 6 years should be seen as softening the public for a more definitive announcement of his intentions when the time is ripe.

When we warn against his dictatorial intent, we are often criticized for prejudging the President or engaging in pure speculation. But it is those who think Duterte will yield power after one term who are detached from reality. Do they really think that after killing thousands of people, Duterte would allow himself to be legally shorn of power by what he considers the constitutional niceties of succession and be exposed to certain prosecution by the local courts and the International Criminal Court?

Complicit in crime

The recent developments raise the question of how anyone can continue to serve in the Cabinet of a mass murderer. Indeed, one would not be surprised if former environment secretary Gina Lopez and former social welfare secretary Judy Taguiwalo are secretly relieved at not being confirmed by the Commission on Appointments since they will no longer have to face criticism for remaining in the Cabinet as the murders escalate.

But there are others who remain in Duterte's Cabinet who have had a distinguished record promoting human rights, people's rights, labor rights, and social development, and it becomes harder by the day to understand how they can remain in their positions when it is becoming abundantly clear that mass murder is the central and only real policy of this administration, like the elimination of Jews was that of Hitler's regime.

To think that they can isolate their departments from the rest of the administration and close their eyes to the bloodletting taking place under their very noses and insulate themselves morally from it is an illusion. By remaining in office, they are complicit in the crime, and they know it.

By this time, for these Cabinet members, it should no longer be a question of if but when they split from the mass murderer. If the dictates of conscience do not constitute enough motivation, then let their fear of history's judgment of their failure to abandon a morally bankrupt bloodstained regime. Let history's harsh verdict on the progressives who compromised with Marcos be a lesson to them.

The dilemma of these Cabinet members mirrors that of the remaining liberal or progressive citizens who have stuck with Duterte for over a year in the hope that he would bring about some social reform that would, in their peculiar calculus, offset his murderous spree. (READ: The Left's unity and struggle with Duterte)

The departure of Gina Lopez and Judy Taguiwalo owing to the President's refusal to support them and the absence of any significant social reform initiatives except for cheap populist stunts shorn of mechanisms for funding such as the free college tuition scheme, should make it easier for these people to end their moral and political ambivalence towards the fascism that is engulfing  the country. – Rappler.com

Walden Bello made the only recorded resignation-on-principle in the history of the Philippine Congress in 2015 owing to differences with the Aquino administration on the Disbursement Acceleration Program, the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States, and the Mamasapano raid.

Tragedy once again struck at the heart of Europe. The promenade of Las Ramblas represents one of the city's loveliest walks, filled with children playing in front of street performers, people walking quietly to enjoy the company of other people breathing in the morning air or evening breeze. Transformed in a flash by a weaponized van that sent a message of terror and fear, that promenade will not be the same again. It was hate that fueled the attack and filled the air.

No room for hatred

In the same week, neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and hate-filled bigots spread fear in the streets of Charlottesville, Virginia. Brandishing the familiar torches reminiscent of the Ku Klux Klan and clad in Nazi symbols and flying Swastika signs that reminded people of the killings in Hitler's concentration camps, US President Donald Trump debased the dignity of his office by his failure to unequivocally denounce and call out the hate these groups represented – directly and without hesitation.

In this day and age, there is no room for racism, anti-Semitism, and intolerance of any kind. A line has been crossed, and Trump has been found wanting – bereft of the moral leadership the world demands.

Trump moreover went over the top. In a subsequent tweet in the aftermath of the tragedy of Barcelona, Trump retold the so-called exploits of General John J Pershing who slaughtered countless Filipinos in the Filipino-American War of the early 1900s. According to Trump's apocryphal version, Pershing lined up 50 Filipino Muslim fighters, shot 49 of them in bullets stained in pig-blood, and sent the last one running in fear. Thereby, Trump intoned, this action "deterred terrorism" for decades – a claim debunked by serious historians. Instead of denouncing hatred and senseless violence, Trump sided on the wrong side of history.

Threats & killings, all in a day's work

This same week in the Philippines, which at one time was an iconic symbol of the power of non-violence when its people toppled a dictatorship that had trampled on their rights, President Rodrigo Duterte threatened human rights defenders, menacing them with death at the hands of his dreaded police squads unleashed with abandon in his unrelenting war on drugs.

Moreover, he praised police operations in the province of Bulacan where over 30 people were killed in one day alone and publicly wished that these actions are replicated in other operations. In a country that had witnessed killings at the hands of foreign oppressors in the past, a hate-filled menace has grown instead of the human rights approach that had been enshrined in the country's 1987 Constitution.

Where do we go from here?

The task of the hour is to transform grief into courage; intolerance into an openness of the heart; hatred into a capacity to love; and indifference into a brave brand of global citizenship.

There are no boundaries where hatred is concerned. It has no place in any civilized society, not in the 21st-century world.

We must learn to overcome all kinds of boundaries – territorial, political, religious and all sorts of affiliations which divide us – when and where the specter of hatred rears its ugly head. We cannot succumb into fear and inaction. Now is the time, to take small steps like daily acts of kindness and big steps to tell truth to power; to tell our leaders responsible for an increasing "moral meltdown" in our public spaces that they cannot speak or act in our name.

I believe that we can turn things around, sooner rather than later. – Rappler.com

A framer of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, Ed Garcia taught political science at the University of the Philippines and the Ateneo de Manila University. For over two decades, he served at Amnesty International and the peace-building organization, International Alert, in London, United Kingdom. For many years, he lectured regularly at the Escola de Pau (the School of Peace) at the Universitat Autonoma de Barcelona (UAB) where he enjoyed conversations with his students at Las Ramblas. In post-retirement, he serves in the formation of scholar-athletes at Far Eastern University-Diliman.

Mamayang ika-6 ng gabi, Agosto 21, magsasalubong sa EDSA ang mga magmamartsang mamamayan. Hihingi sila ng katarungan para sa batang si Kian delos Santos. Mag-iingay sila para itigil na ng pamahalaan ang patakaran ng walang habas na pagpaslang sa ngalan ng war on drugs ni Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte. 

Hindi planado ito. Bago ang linggong ito, walang panawagan mula sa kahit anong sektor o kampong politikal para sa anumang malakihang paggunita sa araw ng pagpaslang ng gobyernong Marcos kay Ninoy Aquino 34 taon ang nakakaraan. 

Hanggang binulaga ang bansa ng mga balita ng sunod-sunod na “one-time, big-time” anti-drug operations ng pulisya, na nauwi sa patong-patong na bangkay: mahigit 80 suspects sa 3 lugar sa loob ng 4 na araw. 

Kabilang sa kanila si Kian – ang nag-iisang napatay sa Kalookan nang maggalugad ang mga pulis sa Camanava area. (Short-cut ang Camanava para sa dating "Caloocan", Malabon, Navotas, at Valenzuela na pinagsamang area.) Grade 11 student, mabait, masipag mag-aral (ayon sa mga kapitbahay), nangangarap maging pulis si Kian, kaya nagpapaalila ang ina sa Saudi Arabia para mapagtapos siya.

Nagsasara ng sari-sari store na ibinilin ng ama noong gabi ng Agosto 16, biglang dinakip ng mga nakasibilyang pulis, tinakluban ng jacket, kinaladkad sa pasikot-sikot na eskinita, binugbog, nagmakaawang tama na dahil may test pa siyang pinaghahandaan kinabukasan sa eskuwela, pinahawak ng baril, pinilit siyang iputok iyon, saka siya pinagbabaril, at iniwang bangkay. 

Katabi niya, sa kaliwang kamay kahit hindi siya kaliwete, ang isang kalawanging baril at dalawang sachet ng shabu – ang eksaktong ebidensiyang “natatagpuan” sa bawa't isa sa libo-libong bangkay na itinumba ng mga alagad ng batas dahil “nanlaban". Laging baril na may kalawang. Laging dalawang pakete ng droga. Laging nakipagbarilan sa pulis. 

Bago si Kian, 31 kabataan na ang parang hayop na pinaslang sa ngalan ng drug war ni Duterte– mula batang nagsisimula pa lang maglakad sa Maguindanao, hanggang pagradweyt pa lang na honor student sa Pangasinan; mula 5-taong batang may bitbit na Barbie doll, hanggang sa binatilyong may polyo na pinatakbo ‘tsaka tinambangan. 

Iba-iba ang dahilan ng walang-pusong pagbaon ng bala sa kanilang mga katawan: courier daw ng ama, kasama daw ng lolong pusher, napadalaw raw sa bahay na nakatakdang salakayin, natutulog sa tent sa evacuation area, isinulsol ng kapitbahay na nakasagutan lang, pinandagdag sa quota na umano’y hinihingi ng Malacañang linggo-linggo, buwan-buwan. 

Pero bakit ganito ang siklab ng galit ng mga mamamayan sa kaso ni Kian? 

Dahil umaalingawngaw ang putukan sa mahihirap na barangay habang nakabibingi ang katahimikan ng Pangulo sa P6.4-bilyong halaga ng shabu na nakapuslit sa aduwana. 

Dahil ang anak ng maliliit na tao ay binabaril nang walang tanong-tanong, habang intriga lang daw ang pagkadawit sa drug smuggling ng anak na si Pulong. 

Dahil tila pangangatawanan ng pamahalaan na ligaligin tayo hanggang makalimutan o ‘wag na nating ungkatin kung bakit ang naglalakihang drug lord ay binibigyan ng panahon at pagkakataon na umano’y bumitaw sa kalakal at linisin ang kanilang mga pangalan.

Dahil sa ilalim ng pangulong nagbabasbas ng pagpatay, pumapalakpak kapag may mga bangkay, nagsusulsol ng pagtatanim ng ebidensiya, at nagpapalayaw sa mga utak-pulbura, maaaring ang susunod na Kian ay kilala mo na.

Ang protesta sa Agosto 21 ay hindi na tungkol kay Kian lang. Tungkol na ito sa anak, kapatid, apo, pamangkin, kaibigan, kaklase, estudyante, kapitbahay ng bawa't mamamayan. Pagpapahalaga na sa buhay at pagsasalba sa ating kinabukasan ang pinag-uusapan. Walang kinalaman dito ang away-politika; lahat tayo’y pinahaharap na sa ating konsensiya. 

Isang Agosto 21, mahigit tatlong dekada ang nakaraan, akala ng isang diktador ay takot at manhid na ang kanyang nasasakupan, at maaari siyang kumitil ng isa pang buhay. Lahat ay may katapusan. 

Ngayon, Agosto 21, 2017, at sa mga susunod pang araw, ipaalala natin ang kinahinatnan ng dating tinitingalang naunang hari-harian sa Malacañang. 

Hindi ’nyo gugustuhin, mahal na Pangulo, na kalabanin ang taumbayang nagngangalit at nagigising. – Rappler.com

I read draft proposals on rewritten provisions of the Constitution, including a rewritten preamble that refers to the oddity of "a more perfect" society, in place of the quite sensible "just and humane society." I must now ask: What, exactly, are we rewriting the Constitution for? I was under the impression that we wanted the Charter revised to provide for a federal configuration. And that, indeed, calls for a revision, not only an amendment, of the Constitution because legislative, executive, and judicial power have to be rethought, including the extent of the exercise of the great powers of government: eminent domain, police power, and taxation. But now that proposals surface that have very little to do with this avowed end, I must ask in earnest what it is we want to achieve by a revised Constitution?

One of the most delicate tasks of framers of a constitution is to calibrate the power of the branches of government, and again, merely invoking "democracy" provides no easy answer. A parliamentary system of which the executive is really part of the legislature – since the prime minister and his ministers sit in the legislative chamber – provides for the separation of the executive and legislative with a different configuration from what must be provided for under a presidential system. In this regard, I continue to have a very high regard for the 1987 Constitution. This is the reason that I go by the principle that what need not be rewritten should not be rewritten, otherwise we get curious, if not ridiculous proposals like "more perfect society"!

I agree that something has to be done about a domineering legislature – but not in respect to its checks on other branches of government. Rather, the rights of citizens and public officials summoned before its committees need more adequate protection far more specific than "the rights of persons appearing before it shall be respected," or some grudging concession of similar tenor. In fact the abuse of investigations "in aid of legislation" is something that demands immediate redress.  

As for the President's emergency powers, I have argued in the past that restricting the capability of the President to respond to the demands of contingencies may make the prospect of abolishing the constitution or setting it aside alluring. In other words, the very possibility that the strictures of the 1987 Constitution put in place against a dictatorship may very well spawn one! But there must be checks, because the sparse provisions of the 1935 Constitution allowed President Ferdinand Marcos, or so he thought, to establish military commissions, have civilians tried by them, abolish the the legislature, exercise legislative power, and even usurp judicial functions by granting the authority to issue "arrest, search and seizure orders" to the martial law implementor. Once more, it is a question of careful calibration – and the answer cannot be purely legal.

The ambiguities – such as those relating to representation of Congress in the Judicial and Bar Council, the mode of congressional review of the declaration of martial law, the way Congress should vote when amending the Constitution – stemming from the commissioner's "forgetfulness" that, in the end, they opted for a bicameral legislature rather than a unicameral congress – definitely need addressing: "in joint session," "voting separately," etc – all these need spelling out and clarifying.

But the State Policies and Principles are good; the Bill of Rights is very good.  Provisions on the independent constitutional commissions, on education, health, and other concerns are good. Why rewrite them? As regards national patrimony, there has been the oft-repeated clamor to liberalize provisions on foreign ownership of land. Now, do we really like that, considering the propensity of Filipinos to sell their land, the eagerness of foreign investors to snap up choice parcels?

My unsolicited suggestion is simple: Those parts of the Constitution that have to do with setting in place a federal government should be rewritten first. Those sections that harbor vexatious ambiguities should be dealt with next, and finally, the provisions – or the gaps in provisions – that have spawned abuse and evil (my list has several items – including political dynasties, congressional investigations, constitutionalizing the Supreme Court doctrines on PDAF and DAP, the commander-in-chief provisions that disable rather than enable the President to cope with emergencies, the much-abused party-list system, etc) should receive their fair share of the drafters' attention.

We should write for a clear purpose – and not merely because the chance to rewrite is open to us! – Rappler.com

Fr Ranhilio Callangan Aquino is vice president for administration and finance of Cagayan State University and dean of the Graduate School of Law, San Beda College.

MANILA, Philippines – For the first time in 11 years, the Philippine peso hit an all-time low against the United States dollar – to the tune of P51 to $1.

The prevailing public sentiment is usually that of unease, but historian Leloy Claudio gives us several reasons why a depreciating currency isn't so bad at all. –Rappler.com

MORE ON 'BASAGAN NG TRIP'

On using the term 'Filipino'
Is human rights relevant to Filipinos?
Whom to trust – journalists or social media stars?
What liberalism, LP, and yellow really mean 
Is Islam violent?