On August 21, a rainy Monday night, President Rodrigo Duterte walks into the Malacañang Golf Clubhouse with his right hand raised to the people in the room.  

No need for them to stand up just to welcome him, he says, surrounded by security personnel and Malacañang staff. 

“I’m not a priest anyway,” he quips as he makes his way in.

The President reserved this particular courtesy for his guests that night – journalists from various media companies, the same media he has publicly rebuked and threatened; the same media his rabid online defenders would call his enemies.

That August 21 dinner is the 3rd time he has invited members of the press to spend an evening in his company.

It’s more proof that what the President says in public is not always consistent with his actions.

In his presidency so far, Duterte has threatened media of “karma,” warned that he would file estafa charges against TV network ABS-CBN, vowed to crack down on owners (now former) of the Philippine Daily Inquirer, and claimed that Rappler violates constitutional provisions on media ownership. (READ: Lies about foreign ownership a form of harassment – Rappler)

Duterte’s frustration with the media is real and many don’t doubt he will make good on his threats. But like any politician, Duterte knows he needs the media. His constant interaction with them has also created a certain rapport, a rapport the politician in him will always seek to cultivate.

Charm offensive

In his 3 dinners with media, Duterte has been all playful charm and good humor. 

Gone are the threats and insults in his speeches. Instead, he joked around with reporters, listened, and gamely answered questions. He teased reporters, such as when he offered ABS-CBN reporter Doris Bigornia the post of social welfare secretary, and shared a little bit about himself and his life in Malacañang. 

But Duterte is selective about who he invites to these dinners. The first one, held after his first State of the Nation Address, involved around 8 journalists – those who covered him during the presidential campaign and Davao-based journalists he has known since he was mayor.

During the second dinner held on November 15, a bigger group  of 20 was invited. This was composed of the campaign reporters, Malacañang beat reporters, and certain reporters who covered Duterte in out-of-town events. 

The 3rd dinner, on August 21, involved an even larger group – around 35. 

These dinners were meant to be private and were thus not included in his schedule of events blasted to the Malacañang Press Corps (MPC). The conversations were all off-the-record, unless Duterte said he was willing to go on-the-record on specific topics. In the last two dinners, the President granted a press conference, allowing his guests to ask him "anything under the sun." 

Such social gatherings with a sitting president are not new. All presidents had their own ways of getting to know reporters who covered them. 

One of the first things Benigno Aquino III and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo did in their day was to have dinner or lunch with MPC members. Fidel Ramos hosted a few media luncheons that were not limited to the MPC but also included editors, columnists, and journalists from international news organizations based in Manila.

During his brief term, Joseph Estrada would sometimes invite the MPC to lunch, followed by an interview at the Premiere Guest House which served as his official residence.

Ramos and Noynoy Aquino attended Christmas parties hosted by the MPC. Aquino gamely took his turn at singing, if requested by the press corps. (READ: Covering presidents: Life and times of Malacañang Press Corps)

During her term, Cory Aquino even took the trouble of preparing liver paté for media when she hosted a dinner for them. 

In contrast to his predecessors, Duterte is yet to attend an MPC Christmas party or invite the entire MPC to dinner. Meeting Malacañang media was not also a priority in his first few months in power.

In fact, his “boycott” of them, which began during the transition period in May, ended only a few months after his oath-taking, on August 1.

Selective

Duterte is particular about the journalists he invites to these dinners, so much so that he himself has a hand in making the guest list.

According to two Palace sources, Duterte himself would add and subtract names from a list of invited journalists handed to him by presidential communications staff. 

Duterte has so far not excluded reporters from media outfits he has publicly criticized. He has even become personally acquainted with some of them, especially those who covered him during the campaign.

One can only speculate why Duterte invites media to dine with him.

Does he use media to pick up information, to get an idea of the prevailing public sentiment? Does he use it to get feedback? To be sure, Duterte asks his own questions during these dinners. He also listens to responses and reacts to them.

Or is it the other way around? Does he use it as an opportunity to feed lines to the media, to explain himself to them with the hope that this could “guide” their coverage of him?

Or perhaps it’s a little bit of both. It was during the last media dinner when Duterte was first asked whether or not he would attend the wake of Kian delos Santos. His explanation to reporters then made it to subsequent speeches, whenever he touched on the Caloocan teenager’s death.

Or perhaps it’s just Duterte being the politician he is. His mayorship and now his presidency has taught him that media will constantly be breathing down his neck.

He sees the same set of faces covering his official events, reads the same names in bylines of articles about him, his decisions, his words.

Politicians will always want to keep the people who work close to him even closer.

He is still adjusting to his place under the national spotlight, with its new set of journalists, higher stakes, and more unknown variables – a world away from the comfort of Davao with its smaller media community and more manageable bureaucracy.

Only time will tell if Duterte’s attitude to the media will change and how media will respond to whatever happens next. – Rappler.com

News has been my business since I got into it more than 50 years ago. I generally write opinion now, but, even so, news remains a required interest, for no opinion can stand unless supported by the news, indeed founded on it; that’s why the news itself must be solid – that is, certified factual and essentially truthful.

As it happens, not seldom is the news fabricated these days. If any such thing happened before, in the thick of my own practice, it was very rare. But we seem to tend to make up for rareness with egregiousness. Two cases are beyond comparison, and in both it was not only the news that was fabricated but the occurrence itself.

Our first case involves the ambush on Juan Ponce Enrile. (READ: Enrile's tale: Hypocrisy and contradictions)

It had been stage-managed as a pretext for Ferdinand Marcos to impose martial law. The falsehood had gained the currency of fact until Enrile broke away from Marcos 14 years later and confessed to it. The other case is about the rigged election on which Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo assumed the presidency and went on to lead an amenably fooled nation for 6 years.

These cases should rank among the greatest feats of news fabrication in history. That, however, was definitely not the rule. The news was, yes, sugarcoated, softened, or concealed – concealment was itself conceded as a mere momentary recourse – but not fabricated, and the media themselves took these to be benign measures, granted them as contritely remedial, in their own description, a mere “massaging of the news.”

The media of the time were confident – and news sources and subjects generally did not test them – that, as an institution, they had enough professional training and backing of tradition and the law to be able to deal with falsehoods. They would have found, and proved, Enrile’s lie if martial law had not come down and killed their freedom the day after. Arroyo’s vote rigging had been exposed incontrovertibly enough in the media; she in fact apologized for it.

The media knew they could not be fooled, not for too long anyway, so long as they operated on the philosophy that truth and freedom have a mutually reinforcing relationship; that the truth will be found and revealed by free and independent inquiry and that, once out, it shall make you free. This relationship is in fact conceded to be so critical to the public interest press freedom is specifically enshrined in the Constitution, not just subsumed under the freedom of expression.

That was the exciting environment in which I began as a news practitioner in the 1960s and to which I returned after martial law to resume free practice in 1986. It was not to take long, however, before the first intimation of a sea change would hit me.

I went on the Net in 1991, communicating to correspondents scattered across the world, uploading thousands and thousands of words through newspoint@pacific.net.ph. and receiving as much in reply.

“Fake news” was not far in the future. Today it swamps us. How to deal with it?

A useful perspective comes – which, as a newspaperman (that’s what I’ve always considered myself), the most endangered of the journalist species, I value – from George Brock, himself a longtime newspaperman, now Professor and Head of Journalism at City University London, in his book, Out of Print (2013):

“This should hardly be a surprise: the ability to translate information into bits and thus to move it cheaply, quickly and in quantity over great distances reroutes much human communication and will have, however gradually, profound effects in democratic practice, books, money, law and social organization, to name only a few areas of life affected. Wireless technology and digitization profoundly alter the distribution of information of all kinds and how we learn what we know. Some of that is what we call ‘news.’ For anyone who reads, watches or listens to news, the questions posed touch basic assumptions: what we mean by ‘news’ – a flexible term that has taken on different meanings in different eras – may change again. If anyone can be a journalist thanks to cheap, simple electronic publishing technology, what is a journalist and can we define what they do? If we can identify what it is to be a journalist, exactly what value does it have in a wired society in which individuals can share information in such volumes with such ease.”

Brock does not redefine journalism – “the systematic, independent attempt to establish the truth of events and issues that matter to a society in a timely way”; he only rearranges and resites it, to cyberspace.
In that sense, it’s somehow therapeutic, if not altogether reassuring. – Rappler.com

It was a gloomy Friday morning. Cool breeze blew through my window, making it hard for me to get out of bed. My work shift started at 4:30 pm so I didn't mind wrapping myself up in a blanket like a burrito. Moments passed by and I found myself staring at the ceiling. This has happened countless times since last year, when I quit my first job and decided to move to another. I was lying there again. I felt lost, empty, and hopeless.

Flashback to my college days. I made a bucket list which I promised myself to fulfill as soon as I finished my degree. To get my own car, to travel the world, to pursue grad school, and to live independently were some of the things on that list. Everything was clear to me. I would find a job where I would never feel like working at all. I was full of hope, optimism, and energy back then. I was stoked for what life had in store for me. 

Things changed as I approached my mid-twenties and experienced life after college. Doubt, fear, and emptiness replaced my optimism.

I felt stuck in one direction and had nowhere to go. I felt like I was too far from being the person I hoped to be. I began questioning my life's purpose, asking what I really wanted to do. Social media also made me feel bad about myself. I started to compare myself to others. I saw how my batch mates and friends have been tirelessly crawling their way up to reach their goals. How about me? I was just like them before, but how did it happen that I lost my drive?

There came a point in my life that I didn't feel happy and fulfilled at all with what I was doing. I felt like I was just dragging my feet to work every day. I didn't know it was too early for me to think that way. One thing I was sure of was that I was lost, and something was lacking, which I could not figure out.

What happened to my patience, maturity, commitment, and acceptance? Was I too focused on becoming a someone by the age of 25?

“Am I the only one struggling?” I asked myself. Everything seemed blurry until I had a one-on-one talk with a friend. Yes, I was not alone. He had gone through all of this too. It was just a phase in life. If he made it, why couldn't I?

My 20s story might not be the same as yours, however, but I believe that in one way or another, we share the same realizations at this point in our lives.

Don't fret. Get up and find yourself again the way I did. Here are some tips to get yourself back on track.

1.  Focus on yourself. 

Everything seems unsure now. But there's nothing to worry about. It's not about when you get there but how. It may take time to get to your desired destination but it will be worth it. Remember what you love to do and continue doing it. 

Focus on improving yourself. Your competition is yourself and not anyone else right now. Life may be harsh sometimes but kalma, bes. You're only starting. You're too young to have everything figured out.

2. Take that leap of faith.

Never put yourself in a box. Get out of your comfort zone. Sometimes we miss out on better opportunities because we are afraid of trying and committing mistakes. Remember, life moves with or without you. It will not wait for you. Try other things. Do things beyond what you have already mastered. Growth won't happen if you let yourself stay in your bubble of comfort. If you don't feel happy at all with your work, draft that resignation letter and leave. Chase after what your mind and heart tell you to.

3. Forget about that bucket list.

Setting deadlines for your goals aren't bad at all, but don't ever stress yourself over them. Don't subscribe to a fancy guide to live your life. Just live.

Drop that imaginary list rattling around your head. I realized that sometimes we are too focused on crossing out items on that life list. We end up accomplishing nothing because of the pressure we put on ourselves in meeting these in time.

 4. Talk to someone.

Be open to others' opinions. Talk to someone whom you're comfortable with. Ask for help because sometimes having a simple chat can provide you answers.

5. Focus on the good things.

Look at the positive side of everything. If you mess up, don't ever let it rule your life. Problems may come along the way. Just hang in there. Don't beat yourself up if things don't happen the way you planned it.

Were you scolded by your boss for messing up your work? Don't feel upset. Figure out what had gone wrong so it won't happen again.

Ended a romantic relationship? Go out and meet other people. 

Sometimes, it's the way we handle things that matter. Get rid of the negativity and live a positive life.

How about you? How did you find yourself again when you were feeling lost? Share your story in the comments section! – Rappler.com

Everyone is so worried about the North Korea missile threat, yet few are aware of the greater threat of China’s nuclear attack stealth submarines (SSBNs) lurking in the 9-dash area, which covers 80% of the entire South China Sea (SCS). Taiwan, Vietnam, Malaysia and the Philippines have expressed worry over this new development.

The first-ever Chinese operational nuclear sub was sighted in April 2016 in Hainan, an undisputed Chinese island between Taiwan and Vietnam. Hainan is reputed to be the Chinese future strategic naval mega-base to cover the Asia Pacific region, which would challenge US nuclear submarines with undersea berths in Subic Base in the Philippines or Pearl Harbor in Hawaii.

The Hainan initiative was a response to the presence of a US fast attack submarine, the USS Topeka (SSN-754) in Subic Bay on a ‘goodwill’ visit in January 2016. Although the Topeka is not a nuclear submarine, the psyche-war message was clear, “Hey, we are here to stay”, and it could be followed by nuclear subs in the future. The Subic undersea submarine ports and missile silos are believed to be intact to this date.

The visit was a PR move to showcase US-Philippine alliance. It was well-timed, just hours before the Supreme Court ruled that the US-Philippine defense treaty Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA) was legal. It was China’s turn to rattle its saber with the Hainan sub, with a similar message “We are also here to stay”.

The submarine psyche-war has triggered a more intensified US-China nuclear arms race in the Asia Pacific, seemingly irreversible and inching slowly towards a future confrontation. Subic poses a grave threat to the entire Philippines in case of a nuclear confrontation. This puny nation needs to be on the sideline, not in the middle of a nuclear war of giants. The Philippines has to ban US nuke subs in its territory, without jeopardizing US alliance. In a nuclear war, China and the US may have less casualties, mostly military, than the Philippines and Vietnam, mostly civilians in concentrated population areas.

China’s newest nuclear attack sub, Type 094A, is based in an undersea submarine base at Yulin in Hainan, similar to that in Subic, complete with underground shelters. It has supreme stealth capability, just like the US Ohio-class SSBNs. If the US can stalk the well-defended China mainland shores, China can do the same for both US Atlantic and Pacific shores.  The Type 094A is armed with a 12 JL-2A multiple-warhead nuclear missiles, with a range of 11,200 kilometers. JL-2, the ‘tsunami missile’, stands for the Mandarin word for ‘Big Wave’. In a war of stealth nuke subs, both sides can induce massive tsunamis against each other’s population centers.

First-strike is not an option, which can induce massive retaliation. In other words, there are no winners even in a first-strike scenario. Both the US and China military ignore this reality. A submarine clash in the SCS can trigger World War III within hours, if there are itchy fingers on both sides. That’s how close we are to an apocalyptic Armageddon.

The Chinese nuke sub is a game changer, challenging US naval supremacy in the Asia Pacific. China has been ignoring US media-covered diplomatic protests and its warships passing through disputed waters, because China is confident that the US will not dare start a war, now that China has equalized US naval superiority somewhat. There is no mood for war on both sides yet, but increased arms escalation is the precursor to a future confrontation.

Bears like China and eagles like America are deadly predators that puny preys like the Philippines have to contend with and maneuver around. It is a classic David and Goliath story, but David this time has no sling shot. – Rappler.com

Bernie V. Lopez is a seasoned columnist, writing in the last 20 years for various newspapers. He was a freelance director-scriptwriter of news documentaries for television too and was a Communications Professor at the Ateneo Graduate School of Business. He is in the healing ministry of Sr. Raquel Reodica, RVM. You may email him at eastwindreplyctr@gmail.com.

Para mo mabuhay ang iyong pamilya, kailangan mo silang iwan. Habang itinataguyod ng migration ang pamilya ng migrant worker, winawasak din nito ang mga tahanan.

Ito ang paradox or kabalintunaan ng pagiging Overseas Filipino Worker.

Isang dokumentaryo ng Rappler ang humalukay sa pait ng paghihiwalay at pagkawala ng ilaw ng tahanan.

Ayon sa bunsong anak ng OFW na si Maribeth Manguerra, "Hindi ko po naiintindihan bakit umalis si Mama." 3 taong gulang pa lamang si JhobeAnn nang umalis ang ina.

"Naiinggit ako sa mga classmate ko na mga mama nila nandoon. Gusto ko ring maranasanan ang kalinga ng isang nanay," dagdag ni JhobeAnn.

Sabi ng panganay na si Johneth, na 11-taong-gulang nang iwan ni Maribeth, "Habang nagtatagal ang hirap naman. Walang nag-aayos sa akin, pumupunta na lang ako sa kapit-bahay."

Sampung taong gulang si Jomar nang nag-abroad ang ina. "Hinahanap ko kalinga ng nanay, kapag nadapa ako walang naglilinis ng sugat, walang umaaway sa mga umaway sa akin."

May 2.4 milyon na Pinoy na nagkalat sa buong mundo. 51.7% ay babae habang 48.9% ay lalaki. Halos kalahati ang nasa edad 25-30.

Isa si Maribeth sa 55% ng babaeng OFW na domestic o unskilled worker.

Dahil sila'y babae at hindi mataas ang pinag-aralan, katulong o factory worker ang bagsak nila. Sila ang pinakabulnerable sa pang-aabuso sa workplace, panggagahasa, at pang-aalipin. Lubos silang umaasa sa kabaitan ng employer. 

Ayon sa mga eksperto, kawalan ng oportunidad, kahirapan, gutom at kalamidad ang ilan sa nagtutulak sa mga Pinoy na mangibang-bansa. Idagdag pa diyan ang mga itinaboy ng gyera at conflict.

Ano raw ba ang pinagkaiba ng makipagsapalaran sa ibang bansa, kung mamatay ka naman sa gutom dito, o di kaya'y bubulagta ka na lamang sa lansangan?

Matindi at malalim ang lamat sa lipunan na dulot ng migration. Ayon kay President Rodrigo Duterte "almost one-fourth ng mga dependents ng mga OFW ay may tama."

Si Kian delos Santos ang anak ng OFW na si Lorenza delos Santos, isang domestic worker sa Saudi.

Tanging sa pamilyang Delos Santos lamang na biktima ng war vs drugs nakiramay si Duterte. Batid ng Pangulo na balwarte niya ang mga OFW na pinatunayan nitong nakalipas na eleksyon. At tangan ng pamilyang Delos Santos ang simpatya ng mga OFWs at masang Pilipino.

Di man kumpirmado ang kanyang datos, matindi ang kutob ng Presidente na damay ang henerasyong tinaguriang "left behind" sa kanyang gyera kontra droga.  Sabi ng kanyang justice secretary, lahat daw ng gyera ay may collateral damage.

Okey lang pala na maging collateral damage ang mga kaanak ng Bagong Bayani at balwarte ng Presidente?

Sa isang forum sa Rappler, tinanong ng mga nagtatanggol ng kapakanan ng OFW kung paano magkakaroon ng moral high ground ang mga diplomat na nakikipag-negosasyon na mapawalang-sala ang mga katulad ni Mary Jane Veloso na akusado ng pagku-courier ng droga.

Pangako ng Pangulo sa nakalipas na SONA, 10 taon, 'di na raw lalabas ng bansa ang Pinoy. Aayusin daw niya ang ekonomiya. Sabay tinaasan nya ang assistance sa OFW – mula 400 milyon, naging isang bilyon.

Paulit-ulit na sinasabi ng mga tagapagtanggol ng OFW, natutuwa sila sa suporta ng Pangulong Duterte.

Pero para sa 2.4 milyong Pilipinong nakikipagsapalaran sa ibang bansa, napakahaba ng listahan ng problema at di na sila makapaghihintay pa ng 10 taon.

Andyan ang di patas at di makataong pagtrato sa mga trabahador, ang pagtatago ng mga employer ng pasaporte ng OFW, kawalan ng proteksyon ng mga batas ng destination countries, 'di pagbabayad sa tamang oras ng sweldo, pang-aabuso, sexist na mga batas, pangre-rape at human trafficking.

Nitong Abril, bumagsak ang cash remittances ng OFW sa pinakamababang antas sa loob ng 15 buwan. Tila dumidilim ang langit ng mga bayani.

Ayon sa mga dalubhasa, marahil may kinalaman dito ang tumitinding anti-migrant labor sentiment sa buong mundo. Sa Europa, pinagpapasa-pasahan ang mga refugees sa takot na masira ang magagandang ekonomiya nila. Sa Amerika, nakaupo ang isang Presidenteng nagpasimuno ng crackdown laban sa mga migrante. Maging sa mga mamamayan ng Singapore na dati'y yumayakap sa mga foreign workers, namumuo ngayon ang galit sa mga dayuhang kakumpetensya sa trabaho.

Ang kailangang ng OFW ay ang mahusay na pamamalakad, pagtatanim ng mga tamang proseso at patakarang magtatanggol at kakalinga sa kanila habang nasa ibang bansa. Kakambal nito ang pagpapaunlad ng competitiveness nila bilang manggagawa.

Tall order ba? Hindi puwede ang bara-barang diskarte, ang datihang press release governance at ang sangkatutak na pangako. Sila ang nagpadala ng 2.44 bilyon noong 2016 na 10.2% ng GDP. Tinatantiyang bobongga ang ekonomiya ngayong 2017 at malaki ang papel ng remittances sa inaasahang paglago.

Panahon nang tapusin ang pagpapakabayani ng mga Bagong Bayani. Mapa-abroad man o dito sa Pilipinas ang kanilang kapalaran, dapat lang na ramdam nilang naririyan ang pamahalaang kanilang masasandalan. – Rappler.com

The past few weeks have been bad for the Duterte administration. People decried the death of Kian delos Santos, and Senator Trillanes accused presidential son, Pulong Duterte, of smuggling.

Whenever a controversy rocks this government, fellow critics get excited for the next political survey, only to hang their heads when they learn that Tatay Digong remains popular.

For my sanity, I have stopped wishing for a large drop in the President’s numbers. Duterte is no leaden Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo; he is unlikely to scrape the bottom of the barometer bottle the way the electoral extortionist did. And if the less charismatic PNoy is an indicator, only time and multiple scandals will make Filipinos more critical of this presidency.

You want people to despise Digong? A trusted survey junky friend tells me nothing short of a major economic crisis would trigger such a shift. And if that happened, it would be bad for everyone. It would, in any case, be unlikely, given Digong’s unusually competent Department of Finance.

Duterte critics will continue to scratch their heads about the President’s popularity until they come to terms with one fact: Duterte is popular because he is changing what it means to be a Filipino citizen. If we wish to displace the narrative of Dutertismo, we need to present a new story. 

In his recently published book, historian Mark Lilla offers the idea of dispensations to explain shifts in political climate. A dispensation is a set of rhetorical rules that define periods in a nation’s political development. It is not, however “grounded in a set of principles or arguments; it is grounded in feelings and perceptions that give principles and arguments psychological force.”

Dutertismo is a new dispensation in Philippine politics. And for those of us unsettled by this fact, Lilla offers some advice: “If you are unhappy with the terms of debate during one dispensation, you have no choice but to prepare a new one.”

The People Power dispensation lasted 30 years. Its plot arc was one of deliverance: from the dark days of dictatorship to the luminescence of new democracy. Its heroes were traditional power holders given a new sheen: political families, military men, and bishops – all repurposed to become symbols of a “democratic” civil society. Its promise was a rebirth of civil engagement, especially for village-dwelling Manileños.

But nothing lasts forever. Now the People Power dispensation lies in a historical imburnal. Its partisans knew their narrative could collapse quickly, hence they feared the return of a strongman. The strongman, in turn, knew he had a latent public. And this public, enraged by the platitudes of the genteel, bayed for blood.

The Duterte dispensation is plotted logically. The elite demonized strongman rule, and presented democracy as the solutions to our ills. This democracy hasn’t worked, yet oligarchs, biased media, Americans, and liberals insist that it has. Only the common tao and their Tatay Digong know otherwise. We then have a choice as citizens: help our new father bring order to the chaos, or betray the nation by spurning him.

The “nation” that emerges from this narrative is comprised of “regular” people like Mocha, who know what it is like to fear violent criminals and adiks. Those who wish to view politics using “external” criteria like human rights are ignorant of what the rest of the country goes through.

Critics must face the potency of this narrative, even as we condemn the moral depravity of many who promote it. The only way to beat the story of Dutertismo is to replace it. Alas, among those who challenge Dutertismo, the only group to present an alternative plotline is the Communist Party through its legal fronts of “Makabayan” organizations. As in the 1960s, they insist that the Philippines is dominated by a feudal elite allied with the United States, and that a peasant revolution will bring us one step closer to a socialist utopia.

There are a number of problems with their alternative. First, it is outdated. Second, it is compromised by the Communist Party’s continued collaboration with the government, the ouster of Judy Taguiwalo notwithstanding. Third, and most importantly, Duterte has coopted much of Filipino Communism’s rhetoric: the hyper-nationalism, the bloodlust, and the conspiracy-minded belief that Americans are the source of all evil. Hence, when Communist protestors carry banners decrying the “US-Duterte regime,” we must dismiss them as morons. Surely we can do better.

To supplant Dutertismo, we need to reject elements of past dispensations. On the one hand, we cannot imitate the People Power dispensation and imbue elements of the oligarchy with a triumphant moralism. We need a story that is more in touch with everyday experiences. On the other hand, we must reject the Duterte dispensation’s assumption that all truths emerge internally and only from one section of the population. Yes, we must listen to “the nation” and those within it who seek justice after being victimized by criminals. Yet this should not mean the rejection of universal principles like human rights, nor should it mean dismissing all critique as foreign.

I only have an idea of what a new dispensation should not be. But I neither have the creativity nor the temerity to tell you what it should be. Whatever we come up with, however, it must carry moral weight and it must be grounded on a vision for the future. “Nostalgia,” Lilla believes “is suicide.” In the context of bloodthirsty Philippines, these words become more literal and hence more urgent. – Rappler.com

Lisandro Claudio (@leloyclaudio on Twitter) teaches history at De La Salle University. He is the host of Rappler.com’s video series Basagan ng Trip. 

Every day, there are about 30 Filipinos diagnosed as living with the human immunodeficiency virus (HIV). The Philippines has the fastest growing HIV epidemic in the Asia-Pacific region. At its current rate, the total number of HIV infections could reach 142,400 by 2022 – five years from now.

Doctors and legislators have declared HIV a national emergency. It’s not to scare us but it is a wake-up call to get off our complacent ass thinking that HIV will not happen to us.  

There might come a time when a friend, co-worker, or relative will tell you that they are living with HIV. When HIV happens to someone we love, it happens to us, too.  (READ: Orgies and Tinder: Millennials are having sex,some with a deadly price)

When that time comes, what should you say? What should you do? How can you help?

The counselors at the Love Yourself an HIV Testing Clinics see dozens of people coming in for HIV testing every day. These counselors are trained to answer delicate questions with sensitivity and empathy. I asked them what advice they would have. 

What to do

First, know your terms because words always matter. HIV comes with its own recommended vocabulary of words that are carefully put together so they are scrubbed clean of judgment and reproach. (Here’s a list of HIV terminology suggested by UNAIDS)

Personally, I have always loved the term “person living with HIV” or PLHIV to describe someone who has the virus. Never mind if it is long. Compare that to labeling someone as an “AIDS victim” or “HIV victim” and you will see how words have the power to bring people down and how carefully chosen words can uplift.

The second guideline is to listen.

“Disclosing one's HIV-positive status is a very personal and courageous decision for persons living with HIV. They do so despite fears of rejection and ridicule. Listening and responding without judgment goes a long way to helping them accept their new status,” said Michael Jamias, a counselor at LoveYourself.

The third guideline is to ask how they want to be supported. Some PLHIV just want to tell another person about their status – that’s all. We have to respect those limits. The most important thing is to show that you will be there for them when they are ready.

“Listen to their experience of being PLHIV, how they feel and what they are going through. After they share, ask how they would like to be supported. It's all about listening to what the PLHIV say they want or need and providing that,” Jamias added. 

Instead of

The other LoveYourself counselors pooled their insights and and came up with this helpful “instead of, try…” list of things you can say when someone tells you he or she is living with HIV. 

If you find yourself still not knowing what to say, offer benevolence and understanding through silence. Remember when our mothers said if you have nothing good to say, better say nothing at all?

So yeah, silence will also do. And maybe a hug. – Rappler.com  

Ana P. Santos is Rappler’s sex and gender columnist and Pulitzer Center grantee. In 2014, the Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting awarded her the Persephone Miel fellowship to do a series of reports on Filipino migrant mothers in Dubai and Paris.

I’ve written a few columns on impeachment in the past but with 25 lawmakers endorsing the impeachment complaint against Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, and the Senate constituting itself as an impeachment court now a looming possibility, it is time to revisit some of my old writings on impeachment.

Comelec Chair Andres Bautista could also be impeached as well as Vice-President Leni Robredo and Ombudswoman Conchita Carpio Morales. President Rodrigo Duterte himself was charged with impeachment a few months ago, a complaint which was summarily dismissed by the House of Representatives.

In my view, impeachment has been distorted in the Philippines. It was misused against Chief Justice Renato Corona. It has become a means of first resort rather than the ultimate remedy against impeachable officials. It has replaced policy debates or legal forums as the place where differences in approaches to governance are litigated.

Yes, impeachment is a political process but it is not supposed to be a political circus. That’s how it has become in the Philippines where seasons of impeachment have become the new normal.

The nature of impeachment

As most will observe, there is unanimity among legal scholars that impeachment proceedings are a class of their own; as lawyers would say, sui generis. It is both quasi-judicial and quasi-political. Quasi-political because it is akin, but not quite, to a political proceeding undertaken by a political body which is the Senate, and quasi-judicial because it partakes of some of the elements of a criminal process without necessarily following strictly the Rules on Evidence and legal technicalities.

At most, the Rules of Procedure and the Rules of the Senate apply as a supplement to the Rules of Impeachment drawn by Congress.

Perhaps to underscore the uniqueness of the impeachment process, the Constitution has created a singular and independent body, not falling under the jurisdiction of any of the 3 great branches of the government – the executive, legislative, and the judiciary. While the members of the impeachment court are composed of senators, they do not perform their functions as legislators and politicians but on this occasion, they must assume the cold neutrality of an impartial judge. 

As the members of the 1986 Constitutional Commission acknowledged, the impeachment process is essentially a political act with the sole purpose of removing the impeachable official from public office for one or more of the following grounds, as provided by Sec. 2, Art XI 1987 Constitution: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust. 

The most problematic of these grounds is “betrayal of public trust” which is a catch-all phrase to cover all offenses that include all acts which are not punishable by penal statutes but, nonetheless, render the officer unfit to continue in office. These grounds are exclusive and offenses not falling within these parameters shall be rendered insufficient for impeachment purposes.

Commissioner Ricardo Romulo clarified that the impeachment “procedure is analogous to a criminal trial but it is not a criminal prosecution per se,” thus the official concerned may be subject to subsequent civil and criminal prosecutions concerning the acts complained of.

Since impeachment is not a criminal proceeding per se, the principles in criminal procedure do not necessarily apply although it can involve certain judicial procedures. Thus, it is accepted that the official being impeached must be informed of the charges against him, be given the opportunity to defend himself accordingly, and be tried fairly and impartially. 

Given the fact that impeachment is a political act, the power to initiate, hear, and decide upon impeachment complaints and cases is lodged in the legislative branch of government under the 1987 Constitution and its procedure specifically delineated in Section 3, Article XI of the Constitution.

The Constitution makes it unmistakably clear that the Senate, acting as an impeachment court, has the sole power to try and decide all cases of impeachment. As such the Supreme Court has no jurisdiction over it. After all, it is not one of the courts whose decisions are reviewable by the High Court.

In the United States, the decisions of the impeachment court are non-reviewable and stand as the final decision in the case. Indeed, it would be highly illogical and legally awkward for the Supreme Court to review the decisions of the impeachment court trying its highest official.

As a constitutionally created body, an impeachment court is vested with plenary powers to discharge its functions. It can enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs and judgments; punish in a summary way contempt of, and disobedience to, its authority; and, make such lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential to the proper discharge of its constitutional mandate.

By its very nature, the authority of the impeachment court is well-nigh unrestricted. But it does not mean that it can do as it pleases. While the truth is its primordial consideration, the welfare of the democratic institutions should also be given utmost consideration. 

The Sereno impeachment

In an Eagle Eyes column I wrote a few weeks ago, I described the possible impeachment of Chief Justice Sereno as a “fool’s errand, an attempt to do something that has no chance of success. I still think that. However, I am not naïve and know that if President Duterte is behind this effort, it will certainly clear the House of Representatives and go to the Senate for trial. There, the odds are tilted in favor of the Chief Justice.

Culpable violation of the Constitution means a specific constitutional provision was intentionally transgressed by the impeachable official. Betrayal of public trust, even if it has a broader scope, implies a seriousness that rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors that are also grounds for impeachment. Mistakes of judgment, especially on administrative matters and management decisions, do not rise to being impeachable. Those mistakes of judgments have not even been committed by the Chief Justice.

While the accusations against the Chief Justice cannot be trifled with, one cannot help but notice an unnerving proclivity by the present government to threaten independent institutions and officials with impeachment – thanks to the so-called “super-majority in Congress.”

Previously, Vice President Leni Robredo and Ombudsman Morales were also targeted by some quarters and threatened with impeachment supposedly for sending a video message criticizing the government's war on drugs to the United Nations Commission on Narcotic Drugs and for supposed inordinate delays in the resolution of cases filed before the Office of the Ombudsman, respectively. 

Seeing a slew of attempts to oust high ranking government officials one cannot but wonder if there is a concerted effort on the part of some quarters in the government to clear the way to some sinister political agenda, including an attempt to silence administration critics. Without pre-empting the arguments that Sereno’s camp may raise, I must say the charges are largely innuendos without factual basis and mostly touch on administrative matters, and not on the malfeasance of the Chief Justice. The goal is to embarrass and humiliate her, to cast a big net to fish for evidence against her.

Having known the Chief Justice for 41 years, when we were first year students in the Ateneo de Manila University, I can say with certainty that her persecutors will not be able to find such evidence. This is a woman of integrity, who lives simply. Yes, she is strong-willed and assertive, but she is not arbitrary and whimsical. The prosecution will only embarrass itself when this goes to trial.

Preserving the independence of the judiciary

History has illustrated how the concentration of power in one person or group with one ideology has led to abuse of power. As a result, chaos and destruction ensued. To address the ills brought about by the tyranny caused, democracy was invented. One of the bedrocks of democracy is the concept of separation of powers, which envisions the distribution of powers between the executive, legislative, and judicial branches of government. As theorized by Baron de Montesquieu, the separation allows each branch to check the others if they try to abuse their powers.

In the Philippines, our Constitution, as authored by the Filipino people, has envisioned such a state of affairs in our government. This is set forth in Article II, Section 1: The Philippines is a democratic [xxx] society. The vesting of power to a single person has been denounced, as shown in Article VI, Section 31, which prohibits any law granting title of royalty or nobility to any person. Therefore, the governmental powers were distributed to the executive branch, the legislative branch, and judiciary. Each branch was designed to be co-equal and independent in the performance of their respective unique roles –  the legislative makes the law, the executive carries out the law, and the judiciary interprets the law.

The appointment of then associate justice Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno as Chief Justice in 2012 was widely praised and celebrated as it would herald an insulation of the judiciary from the executive for 4 administrations. Chief Justice Sereno surpassed expectations with regard to her independence when she joined the majority in declaring the unconstitutionality of parts of the Disbursement Acceleration Program. In a forum, the Chief Justice was quoted as saying, “I do not serve Presidents, excuse me…. That’s unforgivable.”

Chief Justice Sereno’s refusal to serve political ends and her faithful adherence to the people’s mandate to be independent have now subjected her to political attack through the filing of baseless and frivolous impeachment complaints.

While the impeachment mechanism is meant to remove the highest ranking officials on the most serious offenses – culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust – it should not be abused to remove one whose ideals are not aligned with those of the other branches of the government.

The free exchange of differing ideas is essential to democracy; to force everyone to echo a single ideology would violate the constitutional principles of truth, justice, freedom, love, equality, and peace. The independence of the judiciary, as the last bastion of democracy, should be protected. – Rappler.com

(To be concluded)

I grew up playing in a government health center in my home city in the central Philippines. It was where I would usually go after school with my siblings to wait for my mother, who worked there as a nurse.

I recall the center as newly built, freshly painted, and welcoming to patients and myself, a very active grade school kid. The patients were satisfied with the quality of care provided in this well-built piece of local health infrastructure.

The years went by and my home city became bigger, richer and more crowded, while its infrastructure got older. It is sad to realize that my playground health center now looks its age, like many other forty-year-old clinics spread across the country and in Asia and the Pacific. Moreover, new health infrastructure is being built with the same specifications as my city’s old facility.

Many new government-run hospitals and health centers are being built for acute care, which responds to the past primary disease burden of communicable diseases. These facilities lack web connectivity, are not prepared for climate change, are not capable of or designed to deal with chronic care for the elderly, and their management systems have not been upgraded to address new health issues and concerns.

Electronic data informs coordinated care in SMART health infrastructure

Among the new health concerns are the changing patterns in disease burden brought about by aging and increasing incidence and prevalence of non-communicable diseases, and the urgency of mitigating the health impacts of climate change.

Other pending issues are the availability of electronic information and analytics to inform coordinated care and better payment methods to ensure everyone can get the health care they need when they become sick – or to prevent illnesses.

5 ways to make health infrastructure SMART

For developing Asia to achieve universal health coverage (UHC), we need better health infrastructure that Supports UHC efforts, helps Mitigate the effects of climate change, Addresses aging populations, is Resilient to disasters, and embraces Technology. These are the five pillars of my vision for SMART health infrastructure in the region.

First, health facilities should no longer be conceived as stand-alone units catering to fragmented market and population segments. Instead, they should provide health services in a coordinated and integrated manner so everyone can access them.

Reconfigure hospitals to respond better to aging populations

Rather than individual facilities, hospitals should be hubs and primary care centers should act as spokes, designed and constructed to be managed as a single entity working together.

Second, health infrastructure investments must be “green” to help mitigate the effects of climate change. Hospitals are quite energy-intensive and thus an important source of carbon dioxide emissions. Future, climate-smart health facilities should be designed for resilience and built in more protected locations, with the services needed to provide more efficient water and energy usage.

Third, with people aged 60 and over projected to comprise a fifth of the world’s population in 2050, it’s time to transform and reconfigure current hospitals and build new ones that respond better to the conditions and health-seeking behavior of old people. Elderly-friendly facilities should be designed and tasked to help the elderly take care of themselves, and simulate the environment of home care.

Fourth, health services and facilities typically suffer great damage from natural disasters, but it’s crucial that they continue functioning in the aftermath of such calamities. We can achieve this with back-up generators and fresh water dispensers (ideally powered by renewable energy sources); physical protection against flooding, strong winds and earthquakes; and with preventive measures like placing diagnostic imaging equipment at higher floors instead of the basement.

In SMART health infrastructure, web access is a must

Hospitals, let’s not forget, not only provide lifesaving services but are also an essential sense of security for disaster victims when they are most vulnerable.

Finally, web access should no longer just be an option but a must. The digital health interventions we need to improve the quality of health care services from telemedicine to electronic medical records, all need internet connectivity.

The evidence consistently shows that quality of care, efficiency, and patient safety are improving and increasing with the use of digital health tools. It is therefore imperative that internet connectivity becomes as basic a need as the supply of medicines and water.

If we want to ever achieve UHC in developing Asia and the Pacific, our future health infrastructure must be built SMART. Otherwise all the hospitals we are building today will in a few decades look as dilapidated as my old health center. – 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.

Interview with Leila de Lima, political prisoner.

On August 21, her 181^st day of incarceration and a week short of her birthday, Senator Leila de Lima gave me a wide ranging interview, perhaps the most extensive she has ever given. The last time I saw her was in totally different circumstances, when we faced off as opposing candidates for the Senate at a debate sponsored by Rappler in April 2016. I never imagined that at our next meeting she would be a tightly guarded political prisoner at Camp Crame.

Do you think Duterte will ever give up power?

I do question his psychology and state of mind. You can’t tell what he will do. He’s been charged with crimes against humanity before the International Criminal Court. So it’s hard to see that he will easily relinquish power. I think he is just waiting for the right opening to declare martial law over the whole country. The appointment instead of election of barangay officials must be seen in this light. It could be a step towards martial law or authoritarianism. I don’t know whether to underestimate or overestimate his capacity. It’s very fluid.

What accounts for Duterte’s rise?

Duterte’s rise must be seen in the context of the rise of populism globally. Duterte’s rise was a reaction against decades of neglect and mounting frustrations. People were fed up with the leaders who were educated and came from the elite. It’s time to try a different animal, they thought, even if he is a scoundrel. He struck the right chords, despite his bravado. He speaks a language people understand.  He sold himself as anti-corruption, and he branded all those opposed to him as enemies of the state. He definitely managed a good sell of his persona. But with what is now happening, it’s time for people to rethink.

How would you assess your record at the Department of Justice?

I was a political neophyte. I had been an election law practitioner, before I was appointed to be chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights. But I just served two years out of the 7-year term since I was appointed by PNoy to be Secretary of Justice. I was full of idealism and desire to change things in any way I could. But I knew the problems were overwhelming and that PNoy had to focus on the economy. I was tasked to give order to the administration of justice, and as in other areas of public service, there was inefficiency and corruption there. In my own little way as Secretary of Justice, I pushed a number of reforms like revitalizing the network of prosecutors and taking on a number of high profile cases, like the PDAF scam, the Luneta hostage taking, the Atimonan massacre. And I had to go after corrupt prosecutors. The challenge was quite overwhelming. We had areas of successes and areas of failure. The important thing was to make sure democracy was working. One thing I can say is that persecution was not in my agenda, and we never persecuted anyone using the machinery of the executive branch. I don’t think we were remiss in addressing the drug problem, as Duterte’s people claim. We prosecuted people, but we followed the law. We did not engage in extrajudicial killing of suspects.

What are your views on the drug problem?

The basic problem is poverty and inequality. That has to be addressed. The President has exaggerated the danger because he was a single-issue candidate, and it worked with voters. His statement that there are 3 or 4 million users is inaccurate. The Dangerous Drugs Board head said there are only 1.8 million, and this cost him his job because the President had to persist in his narrative that we are a narco-state.  It’s propaganda.

Why has Duterte focused on you?

It’s a personal vendetta. He can’t stand my having dared to investigate him in 2009, when I was CHR chair. We had open public hearings on the Davao Death Squad, and we summoned him. He appeared. I told him straight that we were told that he had encouraged the unsolved killings. He has not forgotten nor forgiven me. He got a tape about an interview in Davao where I said that I would prove that there is DDS and he’s behind it. When he became President, he said in a public event that he would make me eat the CD. Second, because I am a woman. He can’t imagine that a woman would dare defy him, much less openly oppose him. His own men and contemporaries in San Beda confirm he can’t stand being contradicted.  So what more if a woman opposes him.

He told Congress not to interfere with his war on drugs. On July 13, 2016, when I called for an inquiry, the old wounds resurfaced, and what really angered him was when we presented Edgar Matobato as a witness. I am also an easy target. I don’t belong to any dynasty, have no influential friends, and don’t have any political clout. I made enemies during my stint at the DOJ as SOJ, among them GMA, some senators, and people who belonged to powerful blocs. So no one really came to my defense or my rescue.

Aren’t there people whom that the President listens to?

There are decent people in the Cabinet, like ES Medialdea, and Secretaries Tugade, Evasco, Dureza and Briones, who are in a position to ask the President to stop the killings. But will they do it? These Cabinet members can see the growing outrage, especially over the killing of the student. It’s very clear what’s right and wrong. But they’re scared of the President because he does not like to be contradicted. To me, it’s no surprise that they are fearful of the President. At the same time, they don’t want to take the option of resigning. The constitutional provision is available that if a president is physically or mentally incapacitated, the Cabinet can declare him unfit to discharge his duties. They can have recourse to that.  I don’t see anyone in the Cabinet who would even raise the subject. But if they persist in their silence, they are complicit in what is happening.

Is the PNP hopeless?

It’s not really hopeless. But rebuilding the institution will take years since the current crop of police officers have been converted into cold-blooded killers and they’ll be there for two more decades.  Reforming the PNP will take more than the usual reforms. A few more years of this would take a toll on the institution. The next president will have his hands full attending to this institution.

What about the military?

To be honest about it, the only remaining institution that is more or less faithful to its constitutional mission is the military. Congress supported the martial law extension and the Supreme Court supported the Marcos burial and provided the legal justification for martial law. I am still trying to pin my hopes though in the Supreme Court, even if 10 or 11 are or will be the president’s own appointees if he serves his term. Congress is very disappointing. It has served as a rubberstamp and lost the opportunity to manifest its ideal role as an independent branch of government. But the military is hanging on, so far. As an institution it refuses to be used in the war on drugs. The President knows his hold on the military is less strong than on the other institutions.

What about the Senate?

The President could not stand me and wanted me out. The majority could not afford to go against the wishes of the President because he has the capacity to make their lives difficult. He has dossiers on each of them and he can use these to harass them. They were scared of the President, but they would not admit that or admit that ousting me was what the President wanted. Some of them are sincere, and as things become more and more unacceptable, some of the others may seize the opportunity to take advantage of the outrage as the tide turns. I have an idea of who are the sincere ones and who are plain opportunists. – Rappler.com

(To be concluded)

(READ: Part 1: The misuse of impeachment)

The impeachment complaint against VP Robredo is also not right; it is in fact laughable, to say the very least. How can criticizing the government, although before a foreign body, be considered an impeachable offense? Whatever happened to freedom of speech even if one is a high-ranking official of the government and is expected to be supportive of the administration?

If VP Robredo’s statement before the UN body put the Philippines in a bad light, then the President himself, if not more so, is equally guilty. What with the expletives and threats he so liberally throws at local and international personalities and institutions that criticize his policies, particularly the war on drugs. By no stretch of the imagination can one say that his statements are putting the reputation of the country in good light. 

Again, if Ombudsman Conchita Morales’ act of supposedly delaying cases before her office is an impeachable offense, which, by the way, is an administrative matter, how do we treat the statements by the President on how to prosecute his war on drugs? For instance, statements prodding government enforcers and civilians to arm themselves and massacre drug personalities? Or the unabated occurrences of extrajudicial killings of drug personalities? Or his supposed foreign policy stance to assuage the Chinese and remain indifferent even as Chinese ships continuously encroach onto our territorial claims over some islands in the West Philippine Sea which, by the way, have been sustained in a decision by the arbitration body?

To many observers, these are more serious grounds for impeachment than a purchase of a luxurious vehicle, or a statement criticizing the government, or delays in acting on cases before the Ombudsman’s office. But then again, one can say that even President Duterte’s statements are merely policy statements which many may not agree with despite their adverse consequences. 

The point is – impeachment cannot be used as a tool to persecute or silence perceived political opponents or critics or to subject presidents or other officials to harassment for performing their duties. This can never be the intent of the framers of the Constitution.

While impeachment is a political process, it can never be used as a club to bludgeon persons with opposite opinions or views for the overriding concern that remains is not to advance the political agenda of any particular group but the interest of the public.

Betrayal of public trust and culpable violation of the Constitution as the oft-cited grounds used by whosoever lodges an impeachment complaint must be read in conjunction with the element of deliberate malice and evil intent. They are not magic words that can be invoked at the drop of a hat to make a public official – irritating he or she might be to some – disappear.

In other words, there must be prima facie evidence showing that the act to be considered betrayal of trust or culpably violative of the Constitution is done with deliberate or malicious intent. A liberal construction of the grounds would expose most public officials – who, because of wrong judgment or adaption of wrongful policies that result in unintended negative consequences – to sanctions, if not by impeachment, then by administrative penalties or even worse.

The filing of an impeachment complaint may not be based on popular passion, whim and caprice. Nor can it be used as a tool by the government. Because of the seriousness of its purpose, the complainant must file his complaint after utmost consideration of its merits; after all, the public reputation as well as the proper performance of official functions are at stake. 

This is the reason why the framers of the Constitution thought it wise to put in clear safeguards and guidelines to be followed by Congress to ensure that it does not act arbitrarily and oppressively. Among these are – specifying the grounds for impeachment, the periods within which an impeachment complaint should be acted on, the voting requirements, the one-year bar on initiating an impeachment process, and the promulgation of the impeachment rules. Implicitly, it is also required that the guaranteed individual rights of the individual must absolutely be respect.

While the impeachment complaints against Sereno is vastly different from her predecessor (the possible impeachment of Comelec Chair Bautista is more similar to the charges against Corona as it involved allegations of corruption), they are similar in that it involves the intervention of a president's intent to impose his will on the political process. Let there be no doubt that the only way the Sereno impeachment can move forward is if it is willed by President Duterte, in the same way that President Aquino used all means, including alleged funds from the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), to secure conviction.

In the Corona impeachment, while initially I was sympathetic to the late Justice, I ended up supporting his conviction because of his own admissions regarding his SALN omissions and his unsatisfactory explanations for the huge sums of money in his bank accounts. Nevertheless, if I knew then that President Aquino had used DAP funds to convince reluctant senators to convict Corona, I might now have been swayed to go against the latter. The end can never justify corrupt means.

When the Corona impeachment began, my first article was entitled Pandora’ s Box. I recalled then how Zeus was furious when Prometheus, the titan, stole fire from the heavens and gave it to the mortals. The god’s fury for this sacrilege was implacable such that he gifted Epimetheus, the brother of Prometheus, with the beautiful and gifted Pandora, known in Greek mythology as the first woman on earth. 

But there is a catch: together with Pandora was an earthen jar (for some reason, most of us call it Pandora’s Box) which she was not to open under any circumstances. Piqued by curiosity, Pandora nevertheless opened the jar – and lo and behold – all evil it contained escaped and spread throughout the earth. Fortunately, Pandora, after realizing the gravity of what she had done, hastened to close the lid of the jar. But it was too late because the jar was emptied of its contents except one that remained at the bottom which is Hope. 

That is where we are with this awesome power of impeachment. We have opened the Pandora’s box. One can only hope that we will be also to correct ourselves and restore impeachment to its rightful use as a means of accountability and not a political weapon that will only destroy this country. – Rappler.com

(READ: Part 1: Leila de Lima: Bloody but unbowed)

With the police having become the personal instrument of the President, do you feel safe being incarcerated at the PNP custodial center? With the President now able to get away with almost anything, don’t you feel you can be an object of EJK and the PNP custodial center would be the ideal site for such an action? What is your estimate of getting out of here alive?

I still believe – and, of course, pray – that I would someday regain my freedom and vindication in this lifetime. Perhaps it is naïve of me to say it, but I admit that there is a part of me – perhaps the same part that keeps me going in spite of everything – that believes that my innocence and the importance of my advocacy somehow protects me. I am aware, of course, that this might be more a matter of faith and wishful thinking on my part. I am all that more vulnerable because I am completely and utterly at the mercy of my captors. And that is what I am – a captive in my own country, at the mercy of my oppressors. While my immediate jailers – the police officers here at the Custodial Center – tend to be professional and respectful, I cannot for a moment forget that the person at the very top of the food chain, who himself admits that he has no qualms about killing people, sees me as an arch enemy and has falsely charged me with illegal drug trading, which in the streets today is basically a death warrant for people who are not in this administration’s good graces. He has even expressly stated that he wants me to hang myself. I cannot help but fear that he could have me killed anytime. 

In other words, while I still want to believe that my innocence must afford me some protection and chances of deliverance from evil designs, I cannot forget how vulnerable I am. I live and die at the whim of a sociopath.

I know that the legalities are on your side, but since this is a political case, how confident are you that you will be able to get out of custody while Duterte remains chief of state?

While I still have faith in the independence of the judiciary – which might not be for long if the President and his allies succeed in ousting the Chief Justice, which will not only leave open that critical post, but will also necessarily have a chilling effect on everyone else as it serves as a warning against those who would dare stand up to him and his despotic rule – I am not very confident of regaining my freedom while the President remains as powerful as he is today. I have to manage my expectations, you see.  And I expect that, even if the merits of my case are strong, probably the best I can hope for is to survive the waiting game. So I remain hopeful because the law and the truth is on my side, but I cannot lose sight of the current political reality we are all living in right now.

If you were offered the choice of pleading guilty to lesser charges in exchange for freedom and assuming your Senate duties, would you take the offer? Or is your position dismissal of all charges or nothing at all, in which case you are prepared to be detained indefinitely?

The question is, would I sacrifice my integrity by pleading guilty to an offense I did not commit, in order to have the chance to assume my Senate duties and serve the people who elected me into office? On the surface, it seems to ask whether I would sacrifice my personal interest in order to serve the greater good. I will not be serving the greater good by becoming complicit in obscuring the truth and playing into their narrative. By pleading to an offense – any offense – that I did not commit in exchange for some promise, I would be selling my mandate, not serving it. It would be tantamount to admitting that I am being charged, detained and oppressed for reasons other than the simple and incontrovertible fact that I dared stand up to the President in order to defend the human rights of our people – their right to life, liberty, and security – especially the poor and the vulnerable, who are dying in the streets while the real culprits, the big-time and even self-confessed drug lords are going scot-free. Only the truth will set me and our people free. 

As someone who has followed your career closely and worked with you on some issues while I was in Congress, I find it inconceivable that people would believe what Duterte’s people are saying about you. Why do you think there are so many people who are willing to swallow Malacañang’s story, no matter how outrageously false it is?

I think there are people who believe because they want to believe. They want to believe because they don’t want to face the reality of who they elected as President. That is the misconception we have about democracy. People feel invested in the person they supported, and they do not want to believe that he is capable of destroying an innocent human being for personal vengeance and political power, because if they admit that, they believe that they also have to admit that they made the wrong choice. I think people aren’t yet prepared for that dose of reality. That is the only explanation I could come up with why ordinary people would believe the lies being peddled by the Duterte administration against me, even in the face of the facts, my track record in public service, the utter lack of evidence and even coherence in the cases filed against me, and the circumstances that placed me in the crosshairs of the President and eventually led me here.

I also believe that we have to do something about the erosion of the integrity of the information that our people are exposed to. Fake news, online and offline troll armies and propaganda machineries that peddle so-called “alternative facts”.  If there is such a thing as “alternative fact”, we already have a word for it: lies. People are being exposed to lies. On some level, they are being duped. But on another level, they must know that they are being lied to, but they are probably too weary to sort it out anymore. They have become so tired of, and, thus, desensitized to, separating the lies from the truth. There is truth in the saying that the truth hurts. People are perhaps not yet prepared to face certain truths. The time will come when they will be forced to. Unfortunately, it might take more lives to be sacrificed before that happens. 

Hopefully, when they are ready to be awakened, it would not be too late for all of us. On the other hand, I think that there are people who do not really believe that I am guilty of the charges filed against me.  These are people who, like you, have worked with me, or have seen me perform my duties, first, as an election lawyer, next as a public servant in the CHR and, thereafter, in the DOJ. But they will not stand up to the President and say that to his face. They will not come out to speak in my favor – even if their conscience tells them that I am a victim of political persecution – precisely because of my track record and the fact that I truly am a victim of political persecution. Duterte has been very successful, thus far, in undermining the independence of offices and officials precisely because they have seen what he can do to an innocent woman.   

You said there have been so few of your colleagues and other personalities willing to stand up for you. Where is this coming from? Is it fear of what the President can do to them?

I think the same thing that I have said above applies to my colleagues and other personalities. Some are in denial – they don’t want to face the reality that they have bent the knee, so to speak, to an unscrupulous, sociopathic, vengeful, remorseless despot. Others, I believe, know the truth, but they dare not speak it because they dare not draw attention to themselves, or sacrifice what security – or what little thereof – they feel in the current political climate. After all, if the President can do this to me – someone who is totally innocent – what can he do to others?

Finally, we have to see my current circumstances in light of everything I have done in my career as a public servant. Let’s face it, I have made powerful enemies, many of whom are still in power and have formed an alliance with the President, because of my commitment to delivering justice without fear or favor. Ironically, and yet logically, it is my track record as CHR chairperson and DOJ secretary that has made me a target for vengeance. So there are those who would never speak up for me because they are probably thanking Duterte for giving me what they probably see as my comeuppance. It is perhaps a blessing that I am not a traditional politician. That I am used to standing up on my own. That I do not have to rely on others to find the courage to do and stand up for what is right. The tide will turn, with or without the support of my colleagues, and when it does, they will have to face the consequences of the choices they have made, even the choice to ignore the truth and allow innocent people to be victimized. – Rappler.com

Ginagamit ang numero 30 na nakapaloob sa isang bilog bilang pananda na kumpleto na ang isang artikulo. Ngunit para kay Reynaldo de Guzman, ang numero 30 ang magtatapos ng kanyang buhay. 

Kilala bilang "Kulot," natagpuang patay at tadtad ng di bababa sa 30 saksak sa iba't-ibang bahagi ng katawan ang 14-taong-gulang na bata na diumano'y huling nakasama ni Carl Arnaiz, na naunang napatay ng mga pulis Caloocan. Habang ipinipilit ng mga pulis na nanlaban diumano si Arnaiz, pinabulaanan naman ito ng isang forensic report ng Public Attorney's Office. 

Si Reynaldo de Guzman ang ikatlong biktima, kasunod nina Carl Arnaiz at Kian delos Santos, na napatay sa loob lamang sa loob ng halos 3 linggo. Ang mga pagpaslang sa mga kabataang ito ay binansagan ng ilang human rights group bilang "pagmamalabis ng mga taong nasa awtoridad."

Dahil sa mga insidenteng ito, nagsulat si Ben Domingo ng isang tula na ayon sa kanya ay "katas ng nag-aalimpuyong damdamin." 

TREINTA

Sa mga peryodista
tanda ito ng katapusan,
na kumpleto na ang 'sinulat
at handa na itong mailimbag.

Kaya kung ang manunulat
ay binawian na ng hininga,
sa pagharap niya sa hukay
tinatatakan din ng 'treinta.'

Tulad ng batang si Reynaldo
na sa edad na katorse lamang
ay ginawaran ng isang berdugo
ng treintang saksak sa katawan.

Pero hindi lamang si Reynaldo
ang kabataang hinatulan
ng maagang kamatayan;
nauna na ang marami pa,
kabilang sina Carl at Kian.

Ngunit ang treintang ito
na tumapos sa kanilang buhay
ay magbabago ng kahulugan
dahil sa poot ng taumbayan.

Ang treinta ay magiging simula
ng pagkagising, ng pagkapukaw, 
ng iniheleng mamamayan,
upang isara na ang maitim na telon
ng teleserye ng pagpaslang.

Hindi ito isang pagbabanta,
kundi isang mariing paalala
at napapanahong aral
na sa diwa ng pagbabago
pati ang mga kahulugan 
ay maaari ring maiba.

Hindi ito ang dulo,
ito na ang simula.

Treinta

– Rappler.com

Si Ben Domingo Jr, na naging biktima ng martial law, ay propesor ng journalism sa University of the Philippines. Siya ay taga-Nueva Ecija, kung saan natagpuan ang bangkay ng 14-anyos na si Reynaldo de Guzman, na taga-Cainta, Rizal. 

(Sing to the tune of "Laklak")

Kabilin-bilinan ng lola
Huwag nang kumain sa iba
Ito'y laking insulto sa kanya
Lumamon ka na lang muna!

– Rappler.com

Artwork by Janina Malinis
Text by Marguerite de Leon

#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.

It's hard for Ronald dela Rosa to attract sympathy – not even after shedding copious tears at a Senate hearing last week.

That is not only because he is the chief of police; or because, bald and built solid, he doesn’t look at all like any sympathetic figure; or because his name has the sort of ring that inspires thoughts of theatrics; or because tear-shedding seems to have become a proficient habit with him – it recalls for me the parody by the British humorist Richard Armour of a Shakespearean line: "[With remarkable control of the tear ducts] she lets a round tear fall."

Rather, it’s because he simply doesn't get it.

Dela Rosa – and also the public attorney, Persida Acosta, who shared his sentiments with similar moistness – may have been genuinely, deeply hurt, but their reaction seems to me just too self-centered, too insensitive, too disproportionate for tears.

The hearing was instanced by the apparent mistaken summary execution of a boy of 17, Kian Loyd delos Santos. If indeed a mistake, it was a horribly spectacular one. Barangay and social welfare agency records show nothing that might raise suspicions of Kian being into anything bad, let alone drugs, the reason for his misfortune. Acosta herself has affirmed that; in fact, it's her office that is prosecuting the accused policemen.

But she joined Dela Rosa in his tearful protest against suspicions, raised by Senator Risa Hontiveros, of a “policy” that tends to minimize and cover up mistaken or collateral killings in the war on drugs and also of a “pattern” to all the killings. How dare anyone question the motives of the people who put their lives on the line every day to make the streets safe for every citizen, Dela Rosa protested in defense of his men. For their part, the other police officials at the hearing, again joined by Acosta, intoned a supporting refrain: the death of one Kian does not a policy or a pattern make.

In a way they’re right: Kian’s case is an exception, but only in that it escaped into the light, was caught on closed-circuit television, not to mention witnessed by a crowd of neighbors, and, thus flagrantly revealed, could not be ignored even by a Senate normally apologetic for Duterte.

But with policy and intent plain enough in Duterte's own words– “death” for anyone who’s into drugs, and presidential "protection" and "pardon" for the police pursuing his war – how can Dela Rosa’s protestations of death-defying public service be credible at all? Pattern is spelled out in one common word – nanlaban (fought back) – in the narrative for the more than 2,000 kills to which the police have owned: beside each body lay a gun and somewhere close by, some packets of drugs.

Several thousand more kills are blamed on "vigilantes," as if these summary executioners drew inspiration from anyone other than Duterte. In fact, some of them have been themselves found to be policemen operating in a pattern of their own: assassins setting out in pairs, riding motorcycles in tandem.

By the time President Duterte himself decided to weigh in, the body of 19-year-old Carl Angelo Arnaiz had turned up; he had suffered the same misfortune as Kian – police had put 5 slugs into him. Still, like Kian, Carl was just another isolated case out of thousands to Duterte, who derided Hontiveros as “bobo” for her humane sense of proportion. (Days later Carl’s last seen companion, 14-year-old Reynaldo de Guzman. would turn up dead, too, but surely, in Duterte’s twisted reckoning, that wouldn’t have made any difference either.)

Kian’s and Carl’s deaths were actually the only ones so far determined to be unjustified; no other case has even been opened to independent inquiry – not that Kian’s and Carl’s were; theirs were exposed by mere fortuitous circumstances.

As quick as he was to judge Hontiveros dumb, Duterte hadn’t himself realized until after a year in office that he could not win his war on drugs. At first he thought 3 months was all it would take to exterminate all 4 million of the enemy, then probably 6 months, then one year, then his entire term of 6 years. In the end, he was still off – by a few centuries.

Put in that context, General Dela Rosa's convulsed weeping takes on a whole new meaning. – Rappler.com
 

Like many marriages, President Rodrigo Duterte's alliance with the Left started out like a dream.

Despite Duterte's boast of being the only leftist and socialist presidential candidate in the 2016 elections, the Left did not support his candidacy. Yet days upon winning the election, he offered 4 Cabinet posts (Dole, DAR, DENR, DSWD) to the communist-led National Democratic Front of the Philippines (NDFP), pledged to resume peace negotiations with the revolutionary group, and vowed to pursue an independent foreign policy.

Despite standing disagreements on his avowed preference for extrajudicial killings as a way of solving criminality, his patently neoliberal policies as articulated by his economic team, and his dirty mouth, the national democratic left decided to enter into an alliance with Duterte. The hope was that by joining the administration, there would be greater opportunities to push for meaningful reforms and ensure that the marginalized sectors – workers, farmers, fisherfolk, indigenous peoples, and urban poor – would get better services and be given a bigger voice in policy making.

Besides, by working with a newly-elected president whose mantra was "Change is Coming," there was a chance that Duterte's leftist posturing would actually convert into concrete policies and actions.

The war on drugs

Barely two months into office, however, the cracks started to show. After initially supporting Duterte's campaign against illegal drugs, the Communist Party issued a strongly-worded statement on August 12, 2016, warning that Duterte's drug war "has rapidly spiraled into a frenzied campaign of extrajudicial killings and vigilante murders perpetrated by the police and by police-linked criminal syndicates." 

"Duterte has become so full of himself and intoxicated with the vast power he is not used to handle that he thinks he can get away with upturning the criminal judicial system and denouncing people for defending human rights," the CPP said.

Citing the experiences of Thailand and Mexico, the CPP warned that the war on drugs was "bound to fail" since it "does not address the socio-economic roots of the problem."

It said efforts by the New People's Army to arrest and disarm drug trade operators and protectors "will no longer be considered as cooperative with the Duterte regime’s undemocratic and anti-people 'war on drugs.'" The NDFP, for its part, repeatedly raised its concerns on the issue of the drug-related and other extrajudicial killings in its series of talks with the government. 

Admittedly, many leftist organizations were caught flat-footed in responding to Duterte's "war on drugs." The quantity and frequency of the killings and threats were simply too overwhelming to merit an immediate organized and systematic response. That the families and friends of the victims were themselves impoverished, vilified and threatened, plus unorganized and unused to political engagements, made it doubly difficult to create an organized form of resistance.

On top of all that was the existence of an alliance with Duterte on other issues equally important to the Left. The contradiction between unity and struggle, between working with the government on some issues but fighting it on others, was a balancing act that many found confusing and difficult. 

In any case, Duterte merely ignored and badmouthed the Left and all the other critics of his drug war. Just as he continues till this day. 

Marcos burial

The next crack in the alliance was over Duterte's decision to allow the burial of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos in the Libingan ng mga Bayani. Leftists and their organizations were among those who organized the rallies and protests against the burial and initiated one among several petitions in the Supreme Court questioning Duterte's decision. 

Again, Duterte refused to heed the views and sentiments of those opposed to a Marcos restoration and revision of history.

Neoliberal economic policies

From Day 1, leftists had questioned Duterte's choice of economic managers who all adhered to the free market, neoliberal economic framework of the previous administrations. This was to be a recurring irritant between his economic team, who insisted on greater privatization, higher taxes and cuts on social services, and leftist groups who advocated the opposite.

Being a populist, Duterte could not ignore the clamor of the left-influenced marginalized sectors on issues like agrarian reform, labor contractualization, free education, lower taxes, mining, housing and social services. Thus, while his economic policies basically remained neoliberal and diametrically opposed to the socialist-oriented Left, he gave token concessions on these issues but only in the face of persistent and militant efforts by leftist organizations from the urban poor, peasant, workers, indigenous peoples and youth sector.  

All out war and martial law

As disagreements with his drug war and his adulation of the Marcoses continued to fester, a third crack opened in February, when the NPA lifted its 4-month long unilateral ceasefire after several skirmishes with government troops. The NPA accused the AFP of encroaching on some 500 guerrilla fronts, terrorizing residents in NPA-controlled areas, and provoking armed clashes.

In retaliation, Duterte "cancelled" the peace talks and demanded a bilateral ceasefire agreement as a condition for further talks. His defense secretary, Delfin Lorenzana, followed through with a declaration of an "all out war" against the rebels. 

Despite Duterte's insistence on a ceasefire agreement and a stop to the NPA's recruitment and collection of revolutionary taxes as preconditions for the talks, the 4th round of the talks still pushed through in early April this year. The peace panels on both sides agreed to sidestep Duterte's conditions just so the talks would continue. It was evident by this time that the national security cluster led by former generals Hermogenes Esperon and Lorenzana was dictating the government's handling of the talks. And Duterte, just like previous presidents, was primarily after the rebels' laying down of arms. Addressing the roots of the armed conflict would be a secondary objective, if at all.

In the weeks following Lorenzana's "all out war" declaration, rural communities in Mindanao, especially Lumad communities, were complaining about increased military operations in their areas. Human rights groups were documenting increased incidents of extrajudicial killings, aerial bombings of civilian communities, occupation of schools and other public buildings, threats and harassment from soldiers and paramilitary groups.

The last straw that finally broke the alliance was Duterte's declaration of martial law in the entire Mindanao archipelago and his accompanying acquiescence to US military intervention in resolving not just the Marawi siege, but other internal conflicts in Mindanao, too. It was clear from Duterte's Proclamation 216, General Order 1, and related issuances that martial law and the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus was meant to neutralize not just the Islamic extremists that took over Marawi but also the communist movement and their sympathizers in the island's rebel strongholds. This was articulated by both Defense Secretary Lorenzana and AFP Chief of Staff Eduardo Año.  

In reaction to Lorenzana's and Año's statements, the CPP ordered the NPA to intensify its tactical offensives against AFP units engaged in counterinsurgency operations under martial law. This in turn was used by Duterte as a pretext to withdraw from the 5th round of talks scheduled on May 27 to June 1, effectively scuttling the talks.

In fact, the government and NDFP peace panels were already in The Netherlands for the talks a few days after the May 23 declaration of martial law. The NDFP even offered to help the government in containing the ISIS-inspired Maute/Abu Sayyaf Group, an offer totally ignored by Duterte.

Open hostility 

Duterte's insistence on his brutal and ineffective war on drugs, his adulation for Marcos, disdain for human rights, adherence to neoliberal economic policies, and scuttling of the peace talks would come to a head on July 24, 2017, the President's second State of the Nation Address (SONA).

After delivering his SONA to the usual clapping horde of sycophants in Congress, Duterte decided to go out and address the rallyists outside. 

As he spoke before the mainly leftist crowd that had gathered for the People's SONA Protest in front of the Batasan Complex, he was met by a hostile crowd demanding for the changes he promised. Surrounded by a phalanx of Presidential Security Guards, he even dared the crowd to throw a grenade at him before leaving in a huff.

If not for his presence and the rain, his effigy would have been burned.

Rejection of leftist secretaries

As a final nail on the coffin of the Duterte-Left alliance was the successive rejection by the Commission on Appointments of the NDFP-nominated members of the Cabinet.

DSWD Secretary Judy Taguiwalo was up against legislators still smarting from her order not to allow members of Congress to dip their hands into DSWD funds like it were still their pork barrel allocations.

DAR Secretary Rafael Mariano, meanwhile, was fending off opposition from the country's biggest landords led by the Cojuangcos of Tarlac and Lorenzos of Davao.

Apparently, Duterte did not lift a finger to lobby for his appointees, thus feeding them to the raptors in the CA.

Taguiwalo's and Mariano's removal from the Cabinet, plus that of former DENR Secretary Gina Lopez, signals the end for any hope of meaningful reforms from inside the Duterte administration.

Today the dream is gone. The marriage is ended. – Rappler.com

The Philippines is facing the double burden of growing overweight and obesity rates, with a serious problem of malnutrition. These are undoubtedly global problems – a major international study (2017) found that obesity has more than doubled since 1980, with over one in 10 people worldwide being obese. But we experience this in real, challenging ways in the Philippines.

In 2014, 23.6% of Filipino adults were overweight. In 2008, 57% of deaths in the Philippines resulted from the "fatal 4" NCDs – cardiovascular disease, cancer, diabetes, and chronic respiratory disease. This increased to 70% in 2013. Meanwhile, malnutrition has only decreased 8% in 15 years, with the chronic malnutrition rate at 33.4% in 2015.

In this context, it is absolutely critical that the government take strong measures to improve nutrition on both ends of the spectrum in our push for national reform. I am unsure if the current proposed solution – a P10-per-liter tax on sugar-sweetened beverages (SSBs) and P20 for beverages using imported sugar – will steer us towards that goal. Is public health the priority of the proposed tax? (READ: Sugar-sweetened beveage taxes promise P47B revenue – Suansing)

How will the tax improve health outcomes?

The tax intends to reduce consumption of SSBs by increasing their price. However, we must be wary of a potential "substitution effect" – would a tax simply make consumers switch to untaxed products, cancelling out any positive effects?

A report by the Economist Intelligence Unit (2017) points out the prevalence of street food that cannot be regulated. Here in the Philippines we are fond of food like sago’t gulaman, which are highly sweet and not subject to tax. With other factors surrounding sugar consumption, more local research is needed to determine if the tax will definitively lead to lower sugar intake.   

The volume tax is a flat tax – it imposes an added cost of P10 on the price of any SSB (soft drinks, concentrates, coffee, etc). This means drinks with 5 grams and 50 grams of sugar will be taxed the same. To reduce the amount of sugar we consume, a tax based on sugar content is more intuitive. It ensures that drinks with the most sugar will be taxed the most, and is more likely to encourage consumers to switch to the cheaper drinks, with less sugar.

While the proposed tax targets obesity and overweight, it risks hurting those already susceptible to malnutrition. Prices may increase up to 108%, disproportionately affecting consumption in low-income households while also endangering sari-sari stores that constitute 36% of fast-moving consumer goods (FMCG) sales and earn a monthly average of P26,000 from products such as SSBs.

How will the tax revenue address nutrition and health?

Taxes may also contribute to improving health and nutrition outcomes through investment in health programs, education drives, and healthcare financing. The proposed SSB bill is expected to raise over P47 billion in revenue, with 15% allocated to supporting the sugar industry. Only 10% is intended for the Department of Health, and 15% to education. For an ambitious public health endeavour, this is a minimal contribution. We must keep health at the center of discussion.

What are our alternatives?

One clear alternative to a volume-based tax is one that is sugar-based, encouraging consumers to drink less sugar simply because it is cheaper. Beverage companies will also endeavor to reduce sugar content to pay less tax, making the industry a healthier one overall. Taxing sugar content also enables us to track health impact, as we can easily correlate health outcomes to consumers’ intake of sugar, since other sources of carbohydrates remain available.

This threshold model is one that has been favored in countries worldwide, with South Africa and the United Kingdom close to implementation. There are ongoing deliberations in Thailand. As we consider this tax, let us remain geared towards finding the best solution for the health of Filipinos.  

How do we ensure that any health-oriented tax is effective?

To effectively address the double burden threat to public health, Philippine-focused studies on the wider Filipino diet and sugar intake are essential. In Singapore, health authorities have identified white rice as the main cause of diabetes in the country, rather than sugar. Understanding our problem will lead us to an effective solution.

Above all, any nutrition-oriented solution is incomplete without efforts for prevention and education. Awareness-raising programs such as “National Obesity Prevention and Awareness Week” should be leveraged to educate the public on the importance of a balanced diet and regular physical activity. Restricting the marketing of "unhealthy foods" to children and implementing food labeling for nutritional information may also mitigate incidence of NCDs.

As the Senate rules on the introduction of a volume-based tax, we should ask ourselves what health outcomes we want to achieve for our country and implement the most effective, efficient, and impactful policies. – Rappler.com

Dr Teodoro "Ted" Herbosa, MD is the Executive Vice President of the University of the Philippines and former undersecretary of the Department of Health. He is a dynamic advocate of health issues and a published writer in healthcare. As consultant of the WHO, he has assisted countries like Republic of Palau, Maldives, Tunisia and Fiji to formulate development plans and assess national and health emergency plans. Dr Herbosa graduated from the UP College of Medicine and pursued further training in Tel Aviv, Israel.

It's been over 10 years since the release of former US Vice President Al Gore's An Inconvenient Truth. The 2006 documentary film premiered at Sundance and went on to win two Academy Awards with its combined use of breathtaking shots of Earth’s landscapes and Gore's politician's charm in order to talk about environmental issues. But the real lasting legacy of the film is how it introduced the ideas of climate change and global warming to the popular public conscience. It served an all important role of breaking the ice for perhaps the most awkward meeting in history. Hello people, meet the state of your planet.

But a lot has happened since 2006, culturally and environmentally. The conversation to do with climate change has matured significantly, though one would be fair to wonder if its pace has grown fast enough to match the progression of the phenomena itself. And especially with both the historic Paris Agreement of 2015 and recent political shifts in some of the world’s leading economies, now seems to be the right time for us to welcome An Inconvenient Sequel: Truth to Power to keep us all updated on what we've done so far and to answer the question of whether we're doing enough. The film is poised to continue the legacy of set before it and to reignite public fervor for change. Frankly, to be inconvenienced by the truth of what's happening to the planet has never been so aptly timed.

More than just an update

Among others, Al Gore updates us all the progress in the renewable energy market like advancements solar and wind technology, on his work with the Climate Reality Project, and on, of course, the many catastrophic weather events that have rocked the new and developed worlds.

But the film is more than just a simple catch-up. It's not just a part two to the first, taking up where it left off and rehashing the same concept. Though it carries on in the same vein of 'Wake up, take heed, we cannot continue on as we have!', it sends a message distinct enough from the first to warrant its existence.  

Where the first film focused heavily on convincing people of the fact of anthropogenic climate change, the sequel doesn't have to. Since the release of An Inconvenient Truth, one of the biggest developments in climate change advocacy is that we're all aboard the same boat now (mostly). The acceptance of climate change as a real, serious, and most of all, human influenced phenomena has become the norm (sure, okay, we still have so some deniers milling about causing headaches for the rest of us). But as a global society, we've, for the most part, accepted it as fact.

Yale's Climate Opinion Map for 2016 showed less than 10 counties in all of the United States as neutral toward whether global warming was real or not. Since researchers first started tracking the American public's perception and awareness of global warming in 2008, the number of believers has swelled to 70% of their studies sample size, say Yale and George Mason climate scholars. Better yet, 19% reported to be very concerned. Compared to a similar survey done just three years ago, the numbers of people who understand the risks posed to developing countries and even to the United States itself have grown significantly. And these aren't surveys  asking the opinions of climate experts, or even people in adjoining fields. These are the opinions of the public. Though parallel surveys for the rest of the world are lacking, we can still see a definite trend in where the consensus is going.

So if An Inconvenient Sequel isn't here to convince you that global warming is real if it's banking on you knowing, what is it here to say?

It swaps out the many before-and-afters that were a signature of An Inconvenient Truth for things more relatable. Okay, yes, there's still a bit of the whole 'what's changed in 30 years, the ice used to be this thick’. But where the first tried to tug at your heartstrings (Look what we’ve done to the planet!), the sequel tries to relate the facts to your life. My life. Anyone who’s been stuck in the rain, experienced a drought, or just thought the weather was being 'weird’.

Water, water everywhere

The film places a large focus on urban flooding. The before-and-afters of glacier melt are used directly to explain flooding in Florida, torrential rain incidents around the world, and stronger storms in the Pacific. The facts of how global temperatures are climbing upwards are brought completely out of the realm of the abstract and translated to be relatable by connecting them to recent typhoons. Droughts are connected to civil crisis. The film’s emphasis on the actual consequences of climate change show that the problem is communicated best by making it relatable. It needs to be addressed now, because it’s affecting our lives now.

The sense of urgency is much more palpable in An Inconvenient Sequel. If An Inconvenient Truth appealed for you to consider the reality of climate change, An Inconvenient Sequel wants you to understand that it's the greatest issue of this generation.

Just don't expect to see as many graphs,  which were another signature of the first film. Screentime instead is given to intimate interviews with survivors of super typhoons, following Gore to frustrating meetings where coal and renewable energy clash, and shots of the former US Vice President standing in flood waters in disaster areas. There's also no shortage of natural disaster footage, even sans Al Gore. The science is still there to back it all up, don't worry we're not winging it with gut feelings, but now it's shown mostly in the easily digestible form Gore uses in his presentations. The data takes less of a starring role and emphasis is put on how much actual action is being done to educate.

The Climate Reality Project

Following Gore's work to make future climate advocates out of people from all disciplines is another anchor of the film. He does this through the Climate Reality Project was founded in 2006, the same year An Inconvenient Truth was released. A lot of the film feels like a lecture straight from one of these trainings, especially since we see snippets of so many, from the first one held Gore’s private estate ranch to a recent one held in Manila last year. The sequel shifts from focusing solely on climate change, to talking about climate change mitigating action.

We, of course, get to see Mr. Gore's famous slideshow being presented to the trainees (and even him editing it to include recent news). You know the one, with the forms and figures of temperatures rising and incidences of hotter days growing more and more frequent. In the same forums, we also see Al Gore growing impassioned and his voice growing heavy with emotion, almost anger. He calls himself out a few times, saying he's gotten all riled up, perhaps a reflex of self control that stays on as a remnant from his politician days. It's not that he seems tired or frustrated, but the toll of having this conversation seems to be weighing heavier now that in 2006 and certainly more than decades ago when he started speaking about the impact human activities have on the environment. It's strange to see him get so emotional, especially here where he's preaching to the choir. Didn't everyone in those seats sign up and apply to be there? But, of course, it's not just Climate Reality Project volunteers that he has to deal with. Maybe the frustration is directed towards the other players in the movie, the ones who aren't on our same boat, the ones whose primary interests don't lie well with Gore’s and the environments.

And who wouldn't get frustrated with that? Decades of climate work, not just under Gore's belt, but especially by the scientific community, have given what seems to be all the evidence needed to stop the discussion of whether this is real and provide grounds to move and talk about what needs to be done. Yet the conversation still gets bogged down by trying to convince people of the urgency of the matter. This happens with enough frequency that the sequel doesn't need to explain why it isn't carrying as much good news as you'd think it should. There's limitless resources on the problem, detailing just how bad it is and how bad it can get, as well as the measures needed to prevent getting to that point. But as An Inconvenient Sequel points out through the Paris Convention, it's often not up to climate change experts to decide on these measures. It's not even up to the scientific community, meaning all disciplines like economics, the humanities, ecologists, what have you.

Paris was a good, watershed moment

A significant portion of the documentary follows the 2015 conference of the United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), held in Paris, France. This event is what would lead to the Paris Agreement, now ratified by 160 of 195 UNFCCC members. The conference brought heads of state together to decide what the global community and each country should be doing about greenhouse gas emissions and adaptation to climate change. Now, let’s not get too into what they eventually agreed upon, besides that the parties eventually agreed to limit the increase of average global temperatures less that 2 °C above pre-industrial levels. A quick Google search will let you know whatever else you might want about it.

For the documentary, a large point of drama goes into how hard negotiating this was. It highlights the conflict between the developed and developing worlds, particularly when it just comes to energy.  The conflict between economic development and the need to step back from fossil fuels, scientific study or achievement that can't be done without political support, as well as question of who among nations must carry the burden of global warming, are a heavy themes. The issues of global warming and climate change can't be treated like they exist in a world dominated just by science. They’re human issues. And we humans do like our politics. Luckily, Gore can still play ball. Not to give too much away, but the film does well to highlight another aspect of just why Gore is so good at what he does. He can talk the science to the public, sure. But better yet, he can negotiate, communicate, and find compromises between the people who actually decide on policies, so something actually gets done.

Houston, we have a problem

As we wrote this, Houston was largely underwater thanks to Hurricane Harvey, another superstorm made more devastating by climate change. This weekend, as this is published, Hurricane Irma is set to wreck havoc in Florida as it has already done in Carribean countries. While no individual storm can be named a direct effect of climate change, the science all supports that rising temperatures over water and land are doing nothing but increasing their severity. The way we’ve built cities hasn't helped this.

Between 1996 and 2011, Houston added 24% more pavement according to Samuel Brody of Texas H&M University. With that level of loss of surfaces that could actually absorb rainwater, and the flood levels now, it's not that big of a leap to see that many of our human activities, not just where we get our energy from, are adding to the problem. Global warming from carbon emissions isn't the only prong to this. How we make our clothes and food, where we live, how we build our cities, how we move, even how we commonly package and consume our water - they are all connected and the dots all point towards 'We cannot carry on this way’.

In the film, a similar intense flooding event sent home from the 2015 Paris UNFCCC conference the delegates of India, one of the biggest dissenters against abandoning fossil fuels. One can't help but feel Mother Nature’s awful sense of irony.

But there's nothing funny about natural disasters. Nor about how frequent and intense they are growing. Harvey is not an isolated incident, or even something isolated to one part of the globe. This year, over 1,000 people have died in the heavy flooding  that hit South Asia in the summer. So unless we intend to just rebuild our whole world’s civilizations to withstand whatever weather may come our way (apocalypse bunker suburbs, anyone?), our only option for adaptation is to mitigate the effects of global warming and carbon emissions. The industrial age of life being  fueled by coal has to die and stay dead or we may join it.

According to the Asian Development Bank, by the end of the century there may be a billion climate refugees in the Asia Pacific region alone. Many countries stand to lose territory to rising sea levels, increasing temperatures, or the frequency of natural disasters being simply too much for settlement to make sense. The Paris Agreement is set to be enacted in 2020, but based on projections right now, temperatures could rise nearly 6 degrees in some parts of Asia and the Pacific, three times what the agreement says is the maximum allowed. The most at risk are Bangladesh, the Philippines, China, the Mekong Delta, the Indus Delta, and small island states.

What we need to do

An Inconvenient Sequel drills home two points: action needs to be taken now, and that taking that action won't be easy. The growing severity of natural disasters has made it very clear that we don't have the luxury of waiting much longer if we're going to adapt. That it won't be easy is drilled home by the entanglement of politics in the  issue. The 2016 election of Donald Trump, who’s said many times that climate change isn't a real problem, as US President is just the latest in of hurdles the movement has to overcome.

The film is raw and obvious in it's appeal to us the audience, but it's the furthest thing from desperate. It's not a Boogeyman film that's meant to scare you. Neither is it a doomsday message. Even if it's been edited after it's premier to include the US’ intent to back out of the Paris Agreement, the birth of which was such a victorious highlight in the film, the message doesn't see towards the pessimistic. Yes, the reality of climate change is getting even more grim and we're definitely running out of time for action, but it’s not hopeless. Rather, the Sequel ends with a similar call to action as the first film.

Speaking truth to power has never been easy, for Gore or anyone else fighting this fight. The world wasn't built with climate change as it's primary concern. Scientists only started speculating on the possible effects of carbon dioxide emissions on global temperatures in the 19th century. It's an uphill battle to restructure how we live on this planet. It's a fight that's gone on much longer that it should have, but one that must be fought so we can still enjoy living on this planet. We just have to keep on doing it, on an individual level with our lifestyle choices, as well as on a community level with the way we let our societies function. We absolutely have to. It's our moral duty.

An Inconvenient Sequel premiered in the Philippines last August 28. Our understanding is that blocked screening requests can still be entertained by contacting the Climate Reality Project Philippines through e-mail: philippines@climatereality.com.  – Rappler.com

Ally Munda is currently an Environmental Science student at the Ateneo de Manila University, collaborating with Professor La Viña on climate change and other environmental issues.

These days, there's no excuse for apathy. We have access to information, news, and updates 24/7, thanks to our mobile devices. We can engage, critique, and discuss thanks to social media platforms and vibrant online communities. And while it's important keep abreast of the latest issues and even more important to participate in conversations and fight for the causes we care deeply about, the online landscape can be overwhelming.

I've been handling and monitoring social media closely as part of my job and trust me, it's not just you who's feeling burned out. Social media has gotten really toxic these past few months and I've seen the worst —from your run-of-the-mill spam to verbal abuse, abusive images, and even death threats.

Back then it was just about posting personal updates and happy photos but these days our feeds are filled with grim and frustrating reports, peppered with the occasional fake news, propaganda, and trolls firing invectives in the comments sections.

One awful comment or message, you can easily shake off, but this can be emotionally draining over time as you are exposed to more and more of it. So how do you deal? How do still participate in discussions without getting caught up in a frustrating cycle of vitriol?

Moderation is key and taking care of yourself is crucial so you can be productive without burning out. As someone who has to handle digital spaces on a day-to-day basis, here are some tips and tricks I personally use to help me cope with the hostile online environment.

Phase one: Moderate your social media use

1. Set a time limit for yourself.
If you're one of those people who are addicted to their phones, it's crucial to log off once in a while. According to a recent report, Filipinos spend an average of 8 hours and 59 minutes every day online, the most in the world! That's not a good thing.

When you're at home, it's too easy to reach for your phone and browse mindlessly. To help curb this you can try setting a timer whenever you find yourself going online. If you're at home and looking for something to do, set a timer the moment you boot up your computer or open Facebook. Unless there's work you have to do, setting an alarm for, say, an hour, will make you aware that you've already spent this amount of time on the internet. This has helped me reduce the risk of looking up and realizing I spent the entire afternoon scrolling through my feeds.

Another trick is to carve out blocks of time where you don't go online. It can be two, three hours before you sleep where instead of going through Instagram, you can catch up on some reading. If that's too much, try at least 30 minutes first. Keep your phone out of reach and head to bed.

2. Turn off notifications.
Notifications are the triggers that have you reaching for your phone. One moment, you're checking a Facebook comment, and next thing you know, you're on an endless scroll. I've already eliminated notifications from my social media apps and I find myself using them so much less. It's because I no longer get prompts to check them compulsively and I only log on during the times where I want to, which makes setting time limits for myself so much easier. Trust me, you don't need the notifications.

3. Delete the apps.
If the first two don't work for you, I recommend deleting the apps from your phone for at least a week to wean yourself off them. Deleting the apps mean you limit your social media exposure to only when you're on your computer. I do this occasionally whenever I catch myself going online more than I ought to. This is also helpful when I have deadlines for school or work coming up and I need to focus. Without easy access on my mobile device, I'm eliminating distractions.

Phase two: Decompress

Of course, curbing your exposure to social media by eliminating the triggers is just half of self-care. You also need to handle the after-effects of the emotional exhaustion or stress. Here are some ways to do it.

1. Distract yourself.
Indulge in your favorite TV shows or watch a YouTube video on your favorite topics. (But don't forget to set a limit!) I usually give myself an allowance of two to three videos from my favorite beauty vloggers or an episode or two of The Office just to give myself a quick break. I also like to get out of the house and hole up in a coffee shop with a good book or work on my bullet journal.

2. Exercise!
Remember those blocks of time you carved out to be social media-free? Sign up for a class, learn a new sport, or go for a quick session at a nearby gym. There's no need to shell out cash, either. You can try downloading workouts online or head out for a run. Exercise is a great way to clear your head and help you manage stress. Even a light 45-minute workout can help boost your energy levels and give you those much-needed endorphins to help you battle stress.

3. Do chores or run errands.
Bringing out your inner #TitaofManila is about to come in handy! I know a couple of friends who destress by cooking or following a recipe. For me, it's deep cleaning the bathroom. It doesn't necessarily have to be a home-related task but engaging in an activity that requires your concentration and some elbow grease can help you get out of a stressful headspace. As a bonus, it can also be cathartic to see how your space is now organized and clutter-free. If you're cooking, it can be satisfying to reward yourself with a good meal that you prepared yourself!

Find something on your to-do list that you've been meaning to get out of the way, whether it's finally organizing your closet, cleaning the car, or even the load of laundry you've been putting off for a couple of days. Knocking something off your list will be satisfying.

4. Get creative.
Trying your hand at a creative hobby is another way to help you manage stress. You don't necessarily have to be skilled. Don't be afraid to pick up something you've always wanted to try. Is it watercolor? Calligraphy? Creative writing? Keep in mind that you're doing this for yourself. You don't need to show it to anyone so there's no pressure to come up with a masterpiece. Lose yourself in the creative process and don't be afraid to express yourself. It can be a simple as quick doodles, crafting a collage, playing around with clay, writing poetry using fridge magnets, or getting yourself a coloring book.

5. Interact with people offline.
When you're dealing with the worst of people online, it can be easy to forget that there's value in real human connections. Talk to a friend on the phone, schedule a coffee date with an acquaintance, or spend some time playing with your siblings or kids. You can also reach out to groups and communities and attend meet-ups. I've found it very helpful to carve out safe spaces where I can have meaningful conversations with people I care about or supportive communities.

It's also valuable to ask for help or reach out to professionals like therapists. You don't have to wait until the stress becomes unmanageable. After all, you don't go to the doctor only when things get worse, right? Therapy sessions can be helpful for you to check in with yourself and to keep stock of how you're managing your day to day stress.

It's important that you fight misinformation and that you speak up for the issues that you care about. It's crucial that you engage critically online and keep yourself informed, especially in a time of fake news, alternative facts, and "creative imagination." But remember that you need to take care of yourself before you can make the world a better place. Be kind to yourself so you can get up and fight another day. – Rappler.com

Mahalagang araw daw ang Setyembre 11, 2017. Sandaang taon ang lumipas nang pinagpalang isinilang si Ferdinand Marcos, ang bayani ng Ilocandia. Mismong si Presidente Rodrigo Duterte ang nagtakda na espesyal ang araw na ito para sa mga Ilokano.

Sang-ayon kaming mahalaga ang araw na ito, nguni’t hindi dahil sa mga dahilang inilatag ng Malacañang.

“World War II veteran, distinguished legislator and former president.” Mismong ang National Historical Commission of the Philippines ang tumibag sa kuwentong beteranong tadtad ng medalya noong Ikalawang Pandaigdigang Digmaan si Makoy.

Historical fiction ang tawag d’yan, Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea. 

Mahalaga ang 9-11-17 sa mga Pinoy dahil saksi ang araw na ito sa isang napakalaking kasinungalingan na nagtutunog-totoo habang inuulit-ulit. Ito ang ikalawang yugto matapos ilibing si Marcos sa Himlayan ng mga Bayani noong Nobyembre 18, 2016. 

Hindi. Bayani. Si. Marcos.

Itinakda bang holiday ng gobyernong Aleman at Cambodia ang kaarawan ni Hitler at Pol Pot?

Bukod-tangi ba ang Pilipino sa mundo na dalawang beses magpapaloko? Una, noong nabubuhay pa ang diktador at tangan niya lahat ng baraha ng kapangyarihan? Pati ba ngayon – kung kailan 28 taon na ang lumipas mula nang siya'y simulang naagnas – magpapaulol pa rin ba tayo sa pinilipit at binurdahang kuwentong kutsero?

Walang ‘singbaluktot ang rebisyonismong ito. Pero bakit maraming naniniwalang bayani si Apo?

At ang pinakahuli sa saga ng pinakamasuwerteng pamilyang switek sa buong mundo: isasauli daw nila ang mga gold bars kapalit ng amnestiya? At ang spin sa panibagong swindle na ito: pinoprotektahan ng mga Marcos ang ekonomiya kaya't tinangay nila ang mga ginto! Huh?

Pero balikan natin ang kathang-isip ng Bagong Lipunan Reboot 2017. Ito ang datos:

Sick Man of Asia.Dalawang dekadang naudlot ang pag-unlad ng bansa. Ibig sabihin, 20 taon bago tayo nakaahon sa hagupit ng mismanagement at pang-ekonomiyang polisiya ng Martial Law. 

Debt. Iniwan ni Marcos ang $28-billion foreign debt nang siya’y tumakas papuntang Honolulu. Ang utang panlabas na binabayaran natin ngayon: $75.3 billion.

Kleptocracy and crony capitalism. Tinatantiyang 33% o $8 billion ng mga inutang sa dayuhang bangko ang ibinulsa ni Marcos at ng kanyang mga alipores. Maliban pa ito sa pagbakod ng mga kaibigan niyang negosyante sa mga kontrata at benepisyo mula sa gubyerno. 

Abduction, torture, and summary execution. Halos 50,000 ang dokumentadong kaso ng pang-aabuso sa karapatang pangtao noong panahon ng Batas Militar.

Impunity. Sa ilalim ni Marcos, baog ang hudikaturang habulin ang mga makapangyarihan, konektado, at protektado. 

Bakit mahalagang maging tumpak ang pag-unawa natin sa madilim na yugto na ito ng ating kasaysayan?

Dahil ito ang susi sa pagsusuri ng kinasasadlakan nating yugto ngayon: isang charismatic at popular na lider sa Palasyo, napapaligiran ng makapangyarihang mga negosyante, nakaambang higanteng panlabas na utang, pagbusal sa media, malawakang pagyurak sa karapatang pantao at kawalang hustisya para sa mga biktima.

At napag-uusapan na rin lang ang mga biktima tulad ng mga teenager na sina Kian, Carl, at Reynaldo. Hindi ba nakapaninindig balahibo na nanumbalik ang mass slaughter ngayon tulad ng panunumbalik sa pagsamba kay Apo?

‘Wag nating langhapin ang opium na sinindihan ng magkakapatid na Marcos at administrasyong Duterte sa puntod ng diktador. 

Panahon nang iwaksi ang alamat. – Rappler.com