While waging the war on drugs, the administration of President Rodrigo Roa Duterte inevitably confronts the continuing battle against terrorist threats in the Philippines.

The Davao City bombing on September 2, 2016 and the May 23, 2017 Marawi City siege have aptly unveiled the panoply of security threats facing the Philippines involving drugs and terrorism. 

The Philippines is, therefore, not spared from the problem of what many security experts call as narcoterrorism. The problem of drugs and the threat of terrorism pose clear and present danger to the well-being of the Filipino people.  

The concept of narcoterrorism

Former Peruvian President Belaunde Terry originally coined the said term in 1983 to describe terrorist attacks on his counter-narcotics police forces by rebel forces. These rebels belonged to the Sendero Luminoso, more known as the Shining Path, a virulent communist party in Peru. Eventually, the term narcoterrorism referred to violent activities of the Fuerzas Armadas Revolucionarias de Colombia (FARC) or the Revolutionary Armed Forces of Columbia. Latin American authorities blamed the FARC and the Shining Path for perpetrating terrorism and trafficking of prohibited drugs in the Latin American region.

In the 1990s, particularly after the end of the Cold War, the definition of narcoterrorism expanded to include violent activities of both drug syndicates and rebel groups. At the turn of the 21^st century, scholars and experts used the concept of narcoterrorism to grapple with the involvement of terrorist groups in drug trafficking, particularly those associated with Al-Qaeda and the Islamic State of Iraq and Syria (ISIS). 

At present, many scholars and experts use narcoterrorism to describe the complex nexus of drugs and terrorism.

Current state of narcoterrorism in the Philippines

According to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA), 11,321 villages or 26.93% of 42,036 villages in the Philippines are severely affected by drug problems. More than 3 million Filipinos were reported to be addicted to illegal drugs in 2015, based on the 2015 Nationwide Survey on the Nature and Extent of Drug Abuse in the Philippines conducted by the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB).

In May 2017, PDEA reported that 4.7 million of Filipinos became users of illegal drugs. This higher figure, PDEA argues, is more reflective of the real situation on the ground. 

Source:  Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency, February 2016

Around 34% of crime incidents in the Philippines were attributed to illegal drug use in 2013. Almost 80% of all heinous crimes committed in the country were caused by drug addiction.  

The UNODC reported that the Philippines is one of the key transit points and major destinations of illegal drugs, particularly amphetamines, in Southeast Asia.

Illegal drug use not only encourages violent crimes but also fuels terrorism in the Philippines. Some personalities associated with terrorist groups like the Abu Sayyaf Group (ASG) and the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) were accused of either being drug addicts or drug dealers. Lawless elements of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) and rouge members of the Moro National Liberation Front (MNLF) were also accused of the same involvements in illegal drugs. It will not be surprising if other personalities associated with other armed groups like the Ansar Khilafa Philippines (AKP), the Maute Group, and the Al Khobar Group (AKG) are also involved in illegal drug activities.

Conflict-affected areas in the Philippines, particularly in Central Mindanao, were also afflicted with drug problems. The International Alert, a human rights organization, already warned that involvements of some armed groups in illicit drugs in Mindanao could aversely affect the Bangsamoro peace process. The International Alert asserts:

The illicit drug economy should be regarded as a strategic concern in the peace process between the government of the Philippines and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). Left unchecked, the combination of drug-related corruption and violence is likely to have an adverse effect on the governance institutions of the future Bangsamoro. Stakeholders in the peace process therefore need to turn their attention to the drug economy and use the implementation of the peace agreement as an opportunity to address the drug problem. Priorities for action include using drug enforcement as a confidence-building measure, insulating the new Bangsamoro police from corruption, providing alternative economic opportunities for poor communities, challenging the sense of impunity among drug criminals, preventing money laundering, and cutting the links between criminals and politicians.

In the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), the connivance of terrorist groups and drug syndicates has already been investigated. The ASG’s involvement in drug trafficking has also been studied and properly documented. Thus, there was a reason why the PNP described the Davao City bombing on September 2, 2016 as an act of narcoterrorism. 

To combat illegal drugs, the Philippines has existing counter-narcotics institutions: the PDEA, the Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB), and the now defunct Anti-Illegal Drugs Group (AIDG) of the PNP. In March 2017, the PNP launched the Drug Enforcement Group (DEG) to replace the AIDG. The Philippine Congress also has the Committee on Dangerous Drugs to oversee the functions of PDEA, DDB, and the DEG.

Under the Duterte administration, the PNP is at the forefront in the current war against drugs with the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) playing a supportive role, particularly against terrorist groups engaged in illegal drug activities. The PNP’s anti-illegal drugs campaign plan is called “Double Barrel”. The Lower Barrel is dubbed “Project Tokhang” while the Upper Barrel is called “Project HVT (High Value Target)”. There are 5 stages for Project Tokhang:

1. Collection and validation of information
2. Coordination
3. House to house visitation
4. Processing and documentation
5. Monitoring and evaluation

Project HVT is implemented through inter-agency coordination. Towards this end, the Duterte government created the Inter-Agency Task Force on Anti-Illegal Drugs to uphold the “Whole-of-Nation Approach”.  A special fund was also allocated to support the activities of the task force.

Source:  Philippine National Police, February 2016

During its first 100 days in office covering the period June 30 to October 7, 2016, the Duterte administration reported to have conducted 7,928 anti-illegal drug operations with 8,428 persons arrested, 7,002 cases filed in court, and a P8.21- billion worth of seized illegal drugs. The government also dismantled several clandestine laboratories and chemical warehouses being used for the manufacture of illegal drugs. It also arrested 538 high-value targets during the first 100 days in office of President Duterte.

Source:  PDEA, 2016

Source:  PDEA, 2016

PDEA, 2016

But waging the war on drugs a year after, the Duterte administration suffered tremendous setbacks when ISIS-linked armed groups in Mindanao attempted to take over Marawi City to establish a wilaya or a province of the Islamic State (IS) in Southern Philippines. These armed groups belonged to a unified organization called Daulah Islamiya Wilayatul Mashriq (DIWM), the so-called Islamic State Province in East Asia, headed by Isnillon Hapilon of the Abu Sayyaf Group and Abdullah and Omar Maute of the Maute Group. 

The Philippine government confirmed that drug money financed the Marawi City siege.

President Duterte himself asserted that money from illegal drugs funded terrorist activities in Mindanao. In his report to the Philippine Congress to justify the declaration of martial law in Mindanao, President Duterte argued that “foreign-based terrorist groups, the ISIS (Islamic State) in particular, as well as illegal drug money, provide financial and logistical support to the Maute group.”  

In his speech at the 119^th anniversary of the Philippine Navy in Davao City, President Duterte disclosed, “There was a time and until now that the terrorism activities in the Philippines is funded and fueled by drug money." Philippine National Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana affirmed this when he exclaimed, "The proceeds of the narcotics [trade] are being used for these terroristic activities.”

Despite the acknowledgment of the drugs-terrorism threat in Mindanao, the Philippine government, unfortunately, has not yet released a single document to articulate a national strategy to counter narcoterrorism in the country. 

Though the Philippine government has the National Security Policy 2017-2022 and the Philippine Development Plan 2017-2022 containing discussions on the problems of drugs and terrorism in the Philippines, the government has not yet formulated a coherent strategy on how to counter the threat of narcoterrorism in the Philippines that integrates the war on drugs and the war on terrorism. In fact, the war on terror even took the backseat as Duterte focused on the war on drugs.

Policy options & alternatives for the Duterte government

There is no doubt that combating drugs and terrorism has become the flagship program of the Duterte government. The intention is right as the current campaign aims to address criminal violence and other social issues associated with the use of illegal drugs and the concomitant threats of terrorism in the Philippines. 

But given global lessons learned in combating narcoterrorism and the current state of narcoterrorism in the Philippines, what are the policy options and alternatives for the Duterte government?

In 2016, the Transform Drug Policy Foundation, an independent international charitable organization, published the second edition of The Alternative World Drug Report. This Report laments that for the past 50 years, the approach adopted by many countries to fight illegal drugs has not been changed. The dominant approach against illegal drugs has been law enforcement heavy that is “predicated upon policy and military enforcement against producers, suppliers and users – a war on drugs in popular discourse.”

While law enforcement is important to address the criminal aspects and implications of illegal drug use, there is now “a growing demand for a more balanced and comprehensive evaluation of the wider impacts of current drug law enforcement strategies, and also for evidence-based exploration of possible alternative approaches.”

From this Report, the Duterte government may consider the following options and alternatives:

• Fighting the war on drugs with increased ferocity – through increasing the level of resources for enforcement and handing down harsher punishments – with the aim of significantly reducing or eliminating drug use.
• Incremental reforms to enforcement and public health and treatment interventions (within the existing prohibitionist legal framework) to improve policy outcomes. Adequate investment in evidence-based prevention, treatment and harm reduction should form a key pillar of drug policy under any legal framework. However, current enforcement approaches can undermine, rather than support, effective health interventions. Reforms to enforcement practices can also target some of the most harmful elements of the criminal market to reduce key crime costs, such as violence, from their current levels.
• A reorientation to a health-based approach and decriminalization of personal possession and use (civil or administrative sanctions only). Evidence suggests that if implemented intelligently, as part of a wider health reorientation, decriminalization can deliver criminal justice savings, and positive outcomes on a range of health indicators, without increasing drug use.
• The legal regulation of drug markets offers the potential to dramatically reduce the costs associated with the illegal trade outlined in this report, but requires negotiating the obstacle of the inflexible UN drug conventions, and managing the risks of over-commercialization. Drawing on experiences from alcohol, tobacco, and pharmaceutical regulation, increasingly sophisticated models have now been proposed for regulating different aspects of the market – such as production, vendors, outlets, marketing and promotion, and availability – for a range of products in different environments.

Based on important experiences of some countries, those that privilege the hard approach (war on drugs, crackdown against drug addicts, drug-free society) have led to the unnecessary criminalization, marginalization and stigmatization of people using drugs but not harming others. This kind of approach, unfortunately, has enormously failed worldwide based on scientific studies made by global experts. 

According to the Global Commission on Drug Policy, “The global war on drugs has failed, with devastating consequences for individuals and societies around the world.” It argues, “Vast expenditures on criminalization and repressive measures directed at producers, traffickers and consumers of illegal drugs have clearly failed to effectively curtail supply or consumption.”

While some drug addicts are indeed engaged in crimes and terrorism, not all users are criminals and terrorists. In most countries, using illegal drugs is a crime. But not all users are criminals. 

Illegal drug users engaged in violent crimes and terrorism should be given punitive law enforcement actions (hard approach). 

But illegal users who are not harming others must be treated as patients needing careful medical attention (soft approach).  These users must receive appropriate health and treatment services and not punitive and law enforcement actions. 

Treating illegal drug users as patients rather than criminals is considered a more humane and effective approach to address the problem of illegal drug use. China, the Netherlands, Portugal, Switzerland, and UK provide exemplary practices on how to address illegal drug problems through public health interventions by creating more treatment facilities and rehabilitation centers for illegal drug users. But illegal drug users involved in crimes and terrorism must receive the full force of the law.

Findings from solid scientific studies of experts indicate that countries that have pursued harsh actions against drug addicts, dealers, and traffickers and have implemented massive arrest and detention of drug offenders have continued to suffer higher levels of illegal drug use and its concomitant social problems than countries that have adopted a more tolerant, humane and softer actions.

While a hard approach is essential to fight violence and terrorism associated with illegal drug use, the Duterte government should isolate users who are not harming others. These users need a soft approach that requires treatment, rehabilitation and care.

Conclusion

Illegal drug use is a global menace. Its nexus with terrorism further exacerbates the problem it causes to citizens of the world. Narcoterrorism has become a security problem that, if not quickly abated, can undermine world peace and stability. Thus, many countries have adopted various measures to counter the virulent threat of narcoterrorism.

The Philippines is not spared from narcoterrorism. President Duterte has recognized the gravity of this problem. From a war against drugs, the Duterte government has launched a war against drugs and terrorism. The Davao City bombing of  September 2, 2016 provided the current government a strong justification to pursue this war.

A war against narcoterrorism warrants a hard approach that needs strong law enforcement actions. 

But not all users are engaged in crime and terrorism. This type of users needs a soft approach through treatment, rehabilitation and care. 

Based on global lessons learned and solid scientific findings of experts, the Duterte government must adopt a more comprehensive strategy against drugs that applies both hard and soft approaches.

The Alternative World Drug Report offers policy options and alternatives that the Duterte government should seriously consider. – Rappler.com

The author is chairman of the Philippine Institute for Peace, Violence and Terrorism Research and director of the Center for Intelligence and National Security Studies.

Congressman Rodante Marcoleta has become an instant spectacle. I had been reading about him in the news, but it was not until he appeared on television, close up, mouth running, that I knew exactly why.

He upstaged his oppositionist colleague Edcel Lagman, but only because Lagman was just too predictable: knowledgeable, logical, articulate. If Marcoleta himself possessed any of those qualities, he didn't show it when I watched him.

Also, he came to Congress not by winning a regular district vote, as did Lagman; he came through the "party-list system", which allots congressional seats to certain national, regional, and sectoral organizations. He has switched representations between terms, but no one is fooled: he has always served first the interests of the Iglesia ni Cristo so that wherever his vote goes reflects his sect's leanings.

Now Marcoleta sits in Congress as a devotee, doubtless with his sect's blessing, of Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez and, further on high, President Duterte. In fact, it was in order that their will be done that he was cast in the role that I’m writing about here. (In the Senate, that role – majority mouthpiece – goes to Manny Pacquiao, but only when the majority leader himself, Tito Sotto, doesn’t feel up to it and motor-mouth Dick Gordon is hoarse).

Marcoleta got the lead role in the emasculation of the Commission on Human Rights and performed it to such perfection he deserves an Espenido medal, the sort Duterte pins on chests that thump most servilely for him. Marcoleta’s moment lay in his ringing sponsorship of a motion to cut the annual budget of the Commission on Human Rights to a thousand pesos as punishment for not defending Duterte's own human rights against international denunciations of his war on drugs.

To be fair, that subhuman perspective on human rights is no Marcoleta original; it had been a running absurdity, passed from Duterte to Alvarez to him, for final mouthing, though doubtless he proved more than equal to the task.

Marcoleta proceeded from two assumptions and, like a good Duterte clone, stuck with them, however unsound (I did not actually see Lagman roll up his eyes as Marcoleta ludicrously pressed on, but I could swear he was struggling to stop his eyes doing that). The first assumption is that Duterte's war on drugs is a righteous war.

How can a war targeting 4 million humans for extermination be righteous? Thousands, in fact, have been killed – estimates go to as high as 12,000 in Duterte’s first year alone in office. Need anything more be said? Could anything be said at all for the war on drugs that would justify, even in the vaguest sense, Marcoleta’s protestation of human rights for Duterte? Duterte, indeed, has the strangest idea of fixing things: he is fixing humanity the same way he is fixing Marawi – by killing it.

The second assumption fits human rights unconditionally into the most basic of all democratic principles – equality for all. It pursues the point that the Commission on Human Rights has unfairly excluded the President from the equation.

Taken out of theory and put in the proper constitutional and moral perspective, the argument explodes in its face. The relationship intended in the equation is an adversarial one: official power vs citizen rights; in personal representation, Duterte and his police vs the likes of Kian delos Santos, the 17-year-old apparently mistakenly targeted and killed in the war on drugs.

On the other hand, the role intended for the Commission on Human Rights is an equalizing one, precisely in acknowledgment of the not only superior, but potentially conspiratorial, power of the state and its agents over its citizens. In a case like Delos Santos’, the Commission is expected to conduct an evidence-gathering inquiry into suspicions of summary execution and, if warranted, act as an advocate.

At any rate, amid a huge public uproar, the House retreats and restores the Commission’s budget. And, in an attempt to save face and convince itself it has won some measure of victory, it announces that Chairman Chito Gascon has agreed to “broaden” the scope of his Commission’s inquiries – but not to include Duterte among its clients, as Marcoleta was bargaining for. – Rappler.com

Never settle. Keep going. But don’t lose sight of who you are. 

I’m writing this letter to you, 25-year-old self, as a reminder of how far you’ve reached and how far you have yet to go.

The idea of quarter-life crisis seemed unreal until it happened to you. It felt like being stuck in your day-to-day routines. You feel the hunger to do so much more but also helpless with what you have. You keep evaluating if you're doing this right or not. This is a phase you hope you could escape as soon as possible. Still, be in the moment while it happens. It’s up to you to find the beauty in this mess. Going through a crisis means you are alive to feel so. 

When you think that you’ve overcome this crisis already, please don’t forget about these learnings:

On yourself

Above all, it’s all about yourself. 

Your happiness doesn’t rely on anyone. Find ways on how you could be happy. Remember not to be harsh on yourself, though that’s also difficult to remember. 

Keep learning by continuously having the interest to learn. The world is so huge that every person or thing out there could give you something to learn from.  

It’s okay if you don’t have a god or higher being to believe in. Don't feel the need to be defensive to those who don’t have the same opinion as you; keep an open mind. It’s all about being a good person to others.

Take care of yourself while you’re still young. Inside and out, be gentle with yourself. You don’t want to regret about your wellbeing when it’s too late.

If things go wrong, go back to the familiar – it could be your old self, interest, or place you used to love. 

On relationships

Keeping a small circle could be one of the best decisions you've made. Quality over quantity, as they say.  

Keep your loved ones close to you and continuously fight for them. You are not alone because they are there to make you feel the love and support you deserve.

Love, trust, and communication are crucial and should serve as the foundation of any relationship. It’s a process maintaining this everyday but it’s worth it as long as you’re doing it for the ones you love.

Don't cave in to the pressure of engagement, marriage, and kids. It's not a race and you'll get there when you've decided it's already what you want. Take your personal relationship one step at a time. 

On career

Ask yourself: Are you still happy with what you do? Do you still have a purpose? Are you choosing passion over money? Remember how your idealistic and eager younger-self used to think about the so-called real world. 

Most days, work would consume your time. You might think work-life balance is inexistent but it’s up to you to manage everything. Take over the situation and don’t let the situation take over you.

If you feel like work is a routine and nothing’s new, find different avenues on where you could learn. Help yourself to get out of your comfort zone.

Of course, career supports you financially. You can save as much and as early as you can but be wise on sticking with what pays all your hard work.

Don’t settle for what you have now. Go on and on until you find what satisfies you. 

On community

It’s okay not to have a stand on every little thing there is. It’s also okay to be as vocal as you can on the tiniest details. 

Whatever you do, some people will feel like they have the right to judge you. Do whatever that makes you happy. Don’t let anyone dictate who you should be. 

Living in the times of social media could be satisfying and frustrating at the same time. It's satisfying because you can access information with just one click; frustrating because some people tend to be narcissistic and you couldn't care less. 

Keeping a private life is perfectly fine. Never live for virtual likes and attention. Put yourself in the real world. 

Moving forward

Dear 25-year-old self, juggling all these things and more could be crazy but this too shall pass.

Treasure the learnings and remember who you are. When situations go wrong, it’s always best to know where you’re coming from. 

It’s not about leaving a legacy for people to remember you. It’s not about them; it’s about you.

You’ve got a long way to go. You’re not too young but not too old. Keep enjoying life and stop being so serious. 

You’re just getting started. Don't even try to perfect life but I hope you always find something worth waking up to.

Love no matter what, 

Your struggling 20-something self

– Rappler.com

Early in the campaign, President Rodrigo Duterte proudly admitted, “Yes, I cannot lie, I killed 3 people.”

Many people said, “That is a brutally honest man,” and believed him. They reasoned, if he can admit to a crime, he must be incapable of lying.

We say we're tired of the lies, but the truth is, we've gotten used to the lies. Fake news nowadays is accepted as part of online life. It’s mostly ignored by the government spin doctors, who have the enormous task of sanitizing what the President says. 

Wordsmithing in public life has almost come to mean serving a heady cocktail of lies, with a sprig of truth on top. It’s part of the political landscape both on the pro- and anti-Duterte side of the fence.

Moral ambiguity has been a hallmark of the Duterte administration from Day 1: he cursed the Pope and Barack Obama, joked about the rape of a missionary, told soldiers they can rape women, and told police he’ll protect them if they kill people.

People go on admiring Tatay Digong for this. They have the ability to push aside the curtain of morality and look beyond. They see a passionate leader, one who doesn’t take his eyes off the ball, one who stands up for the troops, a true general, one who is not afraid of the collateral damage and the ensuing fallout.

Leadership gurus say being a leader is situational: the best leaders adjust their styles to the situation and capabilities of the people they lead.

Some say Duterte is a master of situational leadership. He connects with his audience regardless of educational or economic level. But an entrepreneurship expert says, “A leader’s integrity should be immutable and unchanging. It’s not for sale.” 

While leadership is situational, integrity isn't.

Last September 15, the President said, “That number I invented, son of a bitch, that's mine, I made it up.” He admitted inventing the bank account number of his top critic, Senator Antonio Trillanes. Only this President would have the gumption to admit making something up and making it a point of pride, too.

His admirers say it’s part of the mindgame; part of the psywar. All is fair in war, right?

Lying may be part of the bag of tricks of lawyers, spies and salesmen. But it’s simply unacceptable for a President. And it’s not just about the form, it’s not just about acting presidential. It’s about substance. It’s about respecting the office you occupy and acting as a president should: with dignity, integrity and accountability. This is no longer Davao and city politics only.

This is about the future of 104 million Filipinos with a national budget of P3.35 trillion. This is the world stage with a new emerging world order that may see China's ascendancy as a world power, America's decline with Trumpolitics, Nokor's nukes, and global terrorism.

Thomas Hobbes said that in the absence of political order and law, there is freedom to plunder, rape, and murder; there would be an endless "war of all against all.”

Our social contract with this President should have precluded plunder, rape and murder, and emphasized accountability, transparency, and integrity. #TheLeaderIWant was a Rappler battlecry during the 2016 elections. In search of answers, we ask over a year later, are we simply getting the leader we deserve?

If you think about it, the joke is on us. The public, after all, has been the target of these mind games. We've been conditioned to condone, remain silent, and consider this as the "new normal."

Over in the US and seemingly no different from us, Americans have been keeping tabs on the lies their President has been peddling. A Politico Fact Check found out 78% of things Donald Trump said during the campaign were false.

Combine the lies with the relentless bully tactics, and you get a deadly recipe for disaster. A president who lies to the public IS a national calamity. This means the highest officer of the land considers truth relative, and the people he’s sworn to serve, malleable and pliant. – Rappler.com

Quantitative methods, such as opinion surveys, are valuable. Quantitative methods are often the only way by which we can ascertain the opinions of very large numbers of people. Indeed I would tell people upset with our leading polling companies who were consistently indicating a Duterte win in the May 2016, to get ready for a Duterte presidency.

On the other hand, any good teacher will tell you to be critical of statistics, even those released by honest and expert statisticians. There are limits to what statistics and opinion polls can tell us. Even the most competent and objective pollers will tell you that there are many situations where their methods should not be applied. As a teacher I ask my students to give equal value to qualitative methods. The study of a few persons, for example, has led to valid theories about the psychology of many. Thus, I urge most students to consider a mix of qualitative and quantitative methods when examining social phenomena.

Most experienced researchers will also tell you that even objective measures can be influenced by any number of factors. Most experienced researchers will tell you that statistical methods need to match the subjective experiences of people at some point. In short, all data needs to be interpreted. Experienced researchers often ask, “Was this something expected even before the data came in or was it counter-intuitive?” There are many labels and explanations for this sense of what the data will show. I just call it “my gut sense”.

As a researcher I know how to tame this gut feeling to ensure that it does not bias me toward certain interpretations. Most feminist activists I knew were not voting for President RodrigoDuterte. And yet my gut was tamed because I knew that my feminist friends were but a small number of the voting population.

Something doesn’t fit

But recently, the “scientific gut” of several analysts and scientists have been screaming that something is not quite right about the continuing and even improving net trust and approval ratings of President Duterte in the surveys.

I write this after the biggest protest rally against the administration so far and the counter rally that has yet again proven that the far less come to pro-Duterte rallies. I also write this at a time when mainstream and social media are increasingly critical of the President. Furthermore, we are beginning to see a number of politicians come out with critical remarks against the administration. Even the more loyal ones sometimes contradict themselves. A recent example is the retreat of the House of Representatives from their move to defund the Commission of Human Rights.

As everyone knows, a qualitative measure of how the political winds are blowing is the behavior of our politicians.

And so, like any good researcher, I looked into why well-run polls could be wrong. And my research tells me that we may not be getting a real picture of how much support President Duterte has.

My first clue is something from polling science itself: polls can be wrong in unusual situations. With thousands dead from the drug war and a climate of impunity, “unusual” is an understatement for our times. Other analysts have noted what has been termed the “creeping dictatorship” of this regime.

Polls in the time of dictatorship

There is very little data on polling issues during the time of the Marcos dictatorship. It would seem that only one poll was conducted towards the end of that regime. That poll was evenly split about the desirability of Martial Law, less than a year before it was ended by a popular revolt.

For more analysis I needed to look at other studies in countries that also experienced a dictatorship.

Rodrigo Patto Sá Motta writes of the dictatorship in Brazil that the concept of “solid support” is problematic in situations where there is no freedom to criticize and the voices of opposition are repressed. One of the reasons many analysts have begun to doubt the poll findings is that the threat of death is real in our communities.

It is also true that critical voices have been massively trolled and death and rape threats of critics has become a common experience. Add to this the continuing filing of cases by the VACC, aka the DOJ, against opposition figures and the imprisonment of Senator Leila de Lima.

Pollsters ask participants to answer questions which, in and of itself, aggravates the perception of danger. Let us say a pollster asks, “I have here a list of names of people. Please tell me your opinion of their performance by pointing to the part of this rating board that expresses your opinion.”

In situations where people are unafraid and have an understanding of confidentiality, we may get good answers. But this is not the case in poor communities where the majority of the respondents reside. In situations where deaths occur because of failing to answer to accusations made on a drug list, people will feel the need to answer, and in a manner that they believe will protect them from repercussion. In these situations the number of people who refuse to answer, what pollsters call the “refusal rate”, may not adequately assess people’s fear.

Julia Paley, writing of responses to the question “which political party do you like best” in the light of Chile’s experiences with dictatorship, notes that this had become a loaded question where affiliation to certain parties could lead to harm. She notes that when asked, the subject of her research chose a political party that was actually very low in his family’s esteem.

As Motta also notes, perhaps the interviewee is actually uninterested in the question, is uninformed of the issue, or is interested in another question. In situations of duress however, the question demands an answer.

I will add that our people’s literacy with regards to research ethics is very low. Even if it is for their protection, they are loathe to sign consent forms. This is why verbal consent is acceptable for many situations in Philippine social science research. It is a guarantee of confidentiality but is often not sufficient to ensure that respondents do not fear exposure.

Social desirability

Answering due to fear is an extreme case of what polling science calls “the social desirability bias”. This is a tendency for people to answer what they guess will make the pollster, neighbors, the barangay officials think well of them. Picture now the respondent in a barangay where the pollster picks every third house. In situations of extreme polarization, and knowing the Filipino penchant for congruence with others, it is possible that social desirability bias is driving approval and trust ratings up.

Thirty years ago, Sikolohiyang Pilipino expert Rogelia Pe-Pua, attempting to indigenize research methods, had already come to the conclusion that the type of private and confidential interview assumed in polling research was inappropriate in Filipino communities.

Even where private and confidential interviews are possible, social desirability factors can become so grave that voters will repeatedly mislead pollsters by refusing to choose an option they think is unpopular. Social desirability bias is the explanation most pollsters give for how they failed to predict a Trump victory in the US. In fact many predictions were way off.

Another explanation for the failure to predict a Trump victory is that pollsters were unable to cover certain sectors. In the US case these were remote rural areas. In the Philippines these are the gated subdivisions of the rich or middle class where pollsters are not allowed.

Ways forward

The points I have been discussing are inherent limitations of polling science. These are not meant to disparage reliable polling agencies. Nor is it my intent to make people refuse to use polls. Rather it is an attempt to help us understand polls properly, something even the scientists who run polls wish to achieve. It is also an appeal to fellow scientists to find ways to overcome what I now believe are factors that are skewing their data.

There are ways by which these limitations can be mitigated. One way is to ask a different set of questions such as when one poll showed that despite high ratings for the drug war, 71% of respondents said they find it "very important" that drug suspects be kept alive by police personnel. This finding is contradictory to the excellent net satisfaction rating for the drug war garnered during the same time.

Another way to overcome these limitations is to increase the number of people sampled. This is essentially what happened when the recent Brexit vote got “corrected” by the actual vote. The size in numbers of the actual vote is certainly far larger than the sample size of the poll.

This is where we need more transparency from our polling companies. Statisticians generally use a formula called “Slovin’s Formula” to determine sample size. Statistician Billy Almarinez notes in a Facebook post, however, that this is not the formula that the leading poll agencies have been using.  Almarinez notes further that these agencies do not give us an explanation about how they determine sample size, an observation I validated by looking for information at the websites of the two top polling companies.

Almarinez notes that there are ways other than the Slovin formula to determine sample size. As we have seen, the formulas have worked in correctly predicting election results. But the sample sizes are relatively small compared to what the Slovin formula would calculate. It is therefore not an unfair speculation that sample sizes may be too small to correct for our unusual situation.

In conclusion

Our view of the polls must also take into consideration the caution that we are getting a slice of people’s views that captures a very specific time period. Opinion polls do not reflect the processes of change that come from the everyday exchanges and discussions that are happening in a nation which is in political ferment. Opinion change is nuanced and incremental. Polls do not measure at this level of detail.

Motta and Paley further caution that the dictatorships they studied inappropriately used the polls to blunt criticism and shore up their legitimacy. Obviously, this did not prevent an eventual shift in their political fortunes.

In the meantime, I suggest that those of us who wish to assess the workings of our government do not use opinion polls as a gauge of government's failure and success. We must also be cautious about what they are saying about the mood of our people. Lastly, if my analysis is correct, we cannot assume the polls are indicators of what will happen next. – Rappler.com

Sylvia Estrada Claudio, MD, PhD is a Professor of the Department of Women and Development Studies of the College of Social Work and Community Development, University of the Philippines.

"...The strength of a people is measured by the welfare of the weak..."

The foregoing words are culled from the Preamble of the Swiss Constitution. These are the words just before the usual injunction, "We...hereby adopt the following Constitution..."

Having had the privilege of visiting Switzerland twice, I can't help but ask myself questions that redound to comparing our system with that of the Swiss. I know, it is like comparing (sweet) apples to (tart) oranges: there is no basis for comparison, for almost all aspects in the lives of the Swiss and the Filipinos.

But having lived in some conflict-affected areas in Mindanao for more than 4 decades of my life, I can't help but ask myself why Switzerland and similar European countries are generally peaceful and economically progressive, and why the inequalities among different sectors are not as sharply divergent as it is in our country.

This year, Switzerland is said to achieve one of the highest per capita incomes in the world, with very low unemployment. And in Switzerland, you will never hear of any random, extrajudicial killing, or even a hint of a state-sponsored campaign against illicit drugs. In contrast, these are our daily fare in the Philippines, spiced up with crass cursing coming from no less than our highest government official.  

At home in General Santos City, I continue to commiserate with my Meranaw brothers and sisters (among whom are my dearest family friends) over their ongoing state of anxiety and misery. The bombing spree in Marawi City continued for quite sometime despite the admission of government troops that they are very close to pinning down the very few remaining terrorists. Now it seems that the behemoth (our government troops) is no match for a group of ragtag, nimble adversaries who have managed to bring this fight to seemingly endless rounds of fiery exchange.

Unlike in boxing, the rounds in the fighting ring that is Marawi are interminable, and no referee is there to end the fight when one party is down. And no one is cheering the victor, unlike when our boxing champ raises his fist in victory over the fallen boxer.

The Meranaws are of course not cheering, but imploring government to end this mayhem, and to allow them to return home. More than 100 days of the siege have weakened them not only physically but also emotionally, and psychologically. Evacuees in Iligan and in other evacuation sites are known to show telltale signs of mental disturbance and there are only a few professionals who are deemed fit to handle these cases.  

Of course the President has pronounced a possible extension of martial law in all of Mindanao, claiming among others, that the Islamic State (ISIS) scare has spread to Buldon, Maguindanao (one of the Iranun towns near the Lanao-Maguindanao border).

(Digressing a bit, is this claim backed up by real intelligence reports? I am quite bothered by his pronouncement, because it might turn out to be a "failure of intelligence," as this has been made the reason for not having addressed the brewing restiveness in Marawi and elsewhere in Mindanao. Failure of intelligence is a non-phrase or an oxymoron – I believe there was no intelligence at all.)

Protection for the weak

Going back to the title of this piece, I am saying that Switzerland is running true to its basic law, of being concerned about the welfare of the weak. This is where its strength lies: there are no rebels and dissident groups; people are generally welcoming even of the most different-looking people who visit their country. I refer to my fellow Muslims who continue to assert their faith through their niqab (complete facial veil).

During my visit, I was a little bit nervous that my hijab (head cover) would get in the way during the required immigration checks, but I was happily surprised it did not. And Switzerland doesn't only look after its own "weak" sectors; it has extended this empathy with weak populations to other parts of the world, like our country, for instance. 

Compare this thrust with that of ours: all throughout the years, from one president to the other, the Philippines has never expressed collectively, in its Constitution or any other legal instrument, that our strength as a nation depends on how we look after the weakest part of it.

We can cite a statement associated with the late president Ramon Magsaysay: "To those who have less in life, there should be more in law." This means that government, through its laws and other legal instrumentalities and policies, should protect the weak, rather than the strong, when it comes to ensuring the former's overall welfare. But I still have to see this made operational in day-to-day life anywhere in the Philippines.

On a daily basis, we see the deep chasm between the rich and the poor, the politicians and the people they are supposed to serve. Ironically, politicians only become "servants" when they beg the people, rich and poor alike, for their votes in the next elections. Afterwards, they forget their promises to look after the welfare of the poor.

They don't even mind them, even if they see the downtrodden walk barefoot or in hole-ridden cheap rubber slippers. They are quite comfortable in their air-conditioned cars, listening to their favorite music piped in the sophisticated sound systems of their vehicles, or in their top-of-the-line, ostentatiously decorated smartphones (only the phones are!).

The government has come up with some poverty alleviation measures, like the Conditional Cash Transfer program. But this and other similar programs are not really working toward making the poor and the marginalized economically and politically strong. It is pushing them to the edges of abject poverty, not to recover or trampoline out of it, but to continue to be dependent on it, like one addicted to illegal drugs.

Expectedly, it is from their ranks where the foot soldiers of drug lords are recruited, and they are the ones who get killed first. The victims become victims more than threefold, and they continue to be persecuted, despite studies and expert opinion on the reproductive nature of poverty spawning not only petty but even capital crimes.

The frame upon which poverty alleviation programs are built has reinforced the power relations between the state and the ordinary, marginalized groups – complete with the condescending and exclusive policies that are the hallmarks of a government that looks at the poor as a burden to governance.

This is so much unlike that of the Swiss government’s orientation to lessen the inequalities among the diverse populations there. The Swiss Constitution enjoins almost all citizens to live with “diversity in unity” and to always consider an inclusive approach to governance – by the principle of recognizing that the state can only be strong if the welfare of the weak is foremost on its agenda.  

And then we have the Marawi “war.” It is true that not all Meranaws can be classified as among the “weak” in our country; but the fact remains that they are still politically poor as far as representation and voice, or even agency is concerned. They may not be economically poor like many indigenous populations or isolated groups in geographically-challenged areas are, but they have their fair share of being misunderstood, being discriminated against, like all other Muslims in the Philippines.  

Again, given present circumstances, I ask myself another question: if the terrorists attacked Makati City, the hub of business of the country and probably one of the wealthiest and economically strong areas in the country, would the President have declared “carpet bombing” to get rid of the terrorists?

Your guess is probably like mine, that he would be careful in making decisions where Makati is concerned. It is the center of financial strength, and like all other past presidents before him, he will not dare weaken a strong center. If he does, he will curse the terrorists no end, but will never blame the people of Makati for his crazy decision to bomb it, unlike what he did in the aftermath of his decision to raze Marawi to the ground.

“You brought this upon yourselves, for having coddled the terrorists among your communities…” or something to that effect. But he can always throw out of the window his concern about helping the weak for areas like Marawi. After all, he and the government he heads do not consider that the strength of a nation lies in looking after the welfare of the weak. – Rappler.com

Rufa Cagoco-Guiam is a retired professor from Mindanao State University-General Santos City.

With all their money, influence and newfound power under the Duterte administration, the Marcos family is still haunted by their past. If the recent pronouncement of the president that the Marcos family is offering to return part of their ill-gotten wealth in exchange for immunity is not a stir or fake news, then no amount of historical revisionism and trolling has given them peace of mind since they were unceremoniously booted out of the country in 1986. Their crimes are like ghosts that refuse to disappear despite applying massive doses of magical spells and incantations.

This is not the first time that the Marcos family proposed this so-called asset-for-immunity settlement. In fact, this is only the latest in a series of failed settlements since they returned to the Philippines from exile in Hawaii in 1992. But while previous attempts to come up with a settlement proved to be failures because the legal processes involved were contrary to Philippine laws, this latest attempt is worrisome for its vagueness or lack of details. 

Where previous administrations have failed, this proposed settlement designed to exonerate the Marcos family from infamy may well be the next terrific accomplishment of the Duterte administration. After all, the apologists argue, the fabled Marcos assets may well be used for the government’s priority programs. But lest we forget, the Marcos family has been scheming in using their assets to lure salivating government officials and other parties into an onerous deal.  

Allow me to backtrack a little to contextualize the issue. Two months after the creation of the PCGG in February 1986, the Philippine government sought the assistance of the Swiss government to help recover documents pertaining to Marcos assets hidden in bank accounts and foundations through the Request for Assistance in Criminal Matters (IMAC).

These documents were necessary to prosecute the Marcos family and recover their ill-gotten wealth. The Swiss government responded on May 29, 1986 by freezing bank accounts and assets in 3 shell foundations. The policy of the Cory Aquino administration was to restitute these assets to fund its agrarian reform program.

As requisite for the release of the Marcos assets held in bank accounts and foundations, the Swiss Supreme Court ruled that the contested assets be placed in an escrow account until a Philippine court gives a verdict on its ownership. The ruling also specified two conditions – for the Marcos family to return to the Philippines to defend themselves in court and for the human rights victims to be given some form of compensation.

These provisions likewise satisfy the standards set by the European Commission on Human Rights. In 1998, the said assets were transferred to an escrow account at the Philippine National Bank (still a government bank then) pending the resolution of the ownership issue. 

For the human rights victims, however, the mechanism to put Marcos to account was prosecution. In 1987, a class suit was filed in the Hawaii District Court in behalf of Liliosa Hilao and over 10,000 other victims of human rights abuses under the Marcos regime. The case was however summarily dismissed.

It will take another 5 years, a rethinking of American laws pertaining to human rights violations, compensation and state immunity, and the replacement of the former judge at the Hawaii district court before the case was reopened and heard in September 1992. All the 3 major cases filed against Ferdinand E. Marcos, Imee Marcos, and the Marcos heirs were consolidated into one: Multi-District Litigation (MDL) 840.

In only two weeks of hearings, the jury found Marcos and his heirs guilty of gross human rights violations. Thereafter the Hawaii court awarded the victims US$1.2 billion in compensatory damages and another $776 million in exemplary damages in 1995 for a total of more than $1.9 billion. The decision was a watershed, the problem, however, was its implementation. 

In the meantime, several forfeiture cases were filed by the Philippine government prosecutors at the Sandiganbayan as early as 1986. And of September 24, 1993, Imelda Marcos was convicted by the Sandiganbayan for violation of Republic Act 3019 (Anti-Graft and Corrupt Practices Act).   

As a practitioner of the “win-win” solution, the Ramos administration authorized then PCGG chair Magtanggol Gunigundo to negotiate with the Marcos family to prevent a protracted legal battle. As stipulated in the General and Supplemental Agreements, both dated December 28, 1993, the Philippine government proposed a sharing agreement on the contested assets – 75% for the government and 25% for the Marcoses. The proposal also called for the Marcoses to shell out $150 million for the Marcos human rights victims in exchange for immunity from suit.      

The public backlash against the “sweetheart deal” resulted in the creation of Kilosbayan, headed by the PCGG’s first chair, former senator Jovito Salonga. In the absence of contrition and restitution, Kilosbayan argued, any settlement with the Marcos family would be a sham. This would also set a bad precedent, as this would encourage plunderers to shed just a portion of the loot and go scot-free. In short, stolen money can now be used to buy immunity for thieves! 

This attempt to reach an agreement failed because the amount specified was considered too low, or a fraction of the amount awarded by the Hawaii district court.  Furthermore, the legal processes involved were complicated. In addition, the timing was not auspicious. Just 9 years after the Marcoses were booted out of power, the wounds inflicted by the Marcos family were still fresh in the memories of Filipinos.

The Estrada administration almost came out with a settlement with the Marcos family. A known Marcos ally when he was still mayor, Estrada had advisers who were close to the two parties – then executive secretary Ronaldo Zamora for the Marcoses and secretary Horacio Morales and TESDA director Edicio de la Torre for the human rights victims.

To set the tone, Estrada argued for the abolition of the PCGG, noting “that litigation is fruitless and expensive, what is needed is the money for the poor!” The Marcos family too issued press statements expressing their willingness to come up with a “global settlement,” i.e., dismissal of all criminal and civil cases against them, guarantee of full immunity from further suits, and tax exemption from the assets that they may keep.

A group of human rights victims under the umbrella of SELDA (Samahan ng mga Ex Detainees Laban sa Detention), convinced the National Democratic Front (NDF) to include the issue of compensation for the human rights victims in the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL) which the Estrada administration eventually signed. Part of Article 5 of the CARHRIHL reads: 

“The parties hereby respect and support the rights of the victims of human rights violations during the Marcos regime taking into consideration the final judgment of the United States Federal Court System in the Human Rights Litigation against Marcos…”[1]

But before any negotiations could begin, the proposed peace talks stalled when the NDF insisted that the framework for the negotiations be the NDF Constitution. However, then ambassador Howard Dee, the head of the government’s negotiating panel, also insisted that it should the 1987 Constitution instead.

When the proposed peace talks finally collapsed, another group of human rights victims, the Claimants 1081, picked up the pieces. The agreement may have pushed through if not for the shrewdness of the Marcos family. The Marcos lawyers inserted some provisions in Par. 5.2 of the Agreement after it was submitted by Atty. Swift, the class suit’s lead counsel. The insertion read:

 “When the Judgments in this litigation are marked satisfied …. which he / she ever had, now has or hereafter may have against said parties.Imelda Marcos has never been charged civilly or criminally with a Human Rights violation anywhere in the world, including in the Philippines but is released fully by this paragraph. Ferdinand R. Marcos has never been charged civilly and criminally with a Human Rights violation anywhere in the world, including the Philippines but is released fully by this paragraph. Imee Marcos Manotoc (with the exception of Trajano vs. Imee Marcos-Manotoc, HW Civil) has never been charged civilly and criminally with a Human Rights violation anywhere in the world, including the Philippines but is released fully by this paragraph, including Trajano. Irene Marcos-Araneta has never been charged civilly or criminally with a Human Rights violation anywhere in the world, including the Philippines, but is released by this paragraph. The late Ferdinand E. Marcos was never charged with a Human Rights violation civilly and criminally in the Philippines. His estate is released fully by this paragraph.”[2]   

When the proposed settlement was submitted to the Sandiganbayan for approval, then presiding justice Francis Garchitorena reminded the parties concerned that human rights victims did not suffer death or injury in anticipation of payment years later.

“They did not sue in order to make money or get rich; rather, they sued to affirm the wrong done to them and to have those who have done them wrong held publicly responsible for that wrong. Money was not all the lawsuit in Hawaii was about; certainly, that is not the meaning of such a judgment by the US District Court in Hawaii… The Republic cannot volunteer to pay for the injury to its own people, and then cause the release from any liability the estate of the one who caused the injury.”[3]  

Finally, the Supreme Court struck down the proposed settlement for reasons contrary to law, among them: that the state cannot grant immunity to defendants but only to those who could testify against them (Marcos family); that the executive department cannot grant tax exemption, only Congress have that authority; likewise the executive department cannot dismiss cases, only the judiciary can; and lastly, the agreement did not provide a definite period for the Marcos Estate to submit an inventory of their total assets and may take a lifetime.[4]

With this ruling, the Supreme Court finally forfeited the assets held in a PNB escrow account totaling $658,175,373.60 (as of January 31, 2002) plus interest, in favor of the Republic of the Philippines. The amount was transferred to the National Treasury thereafter. Unfortunately, the following year, 2004, was general election year. I strongly suspect that part of the Marcos assets was used for election purposes, in particular, the so-called fertilizer fund scam to help Arroyo win. The Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Fund stipulates that proceeds from recovered Marcos ill-gotten wealth are to be used for agrarian reform.

There is no more reason to come up with a settlement with the Marcos family. The implications of Martial Law Human Rights Victims Recognition and Compensation Act (RA 10368) signed by former president Noynoy Aquino in February 2003, is that the Philippine state has finally recognized the Marcos human rights victim and that democracy and the restored freedoms we enjoyed until last year rest on their sufferings and sacrifices. But with the propensity of Malacañang for surprises, this proposed settlement may come again like a thief in the night. The sequel to the Marcos burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani. – Rappler.com 

Roy P. Mendoza is a former History teacher. This article is dedicated to the employees of the soon-to-be-abolished Presidential Commission on Good Government.

MANILA, Philippines — Historian and professor Lisandro 'Leloy' Claudio asks as the country looks back at Martial Law after 45 years: Was it really necessary to defeat the communists?

Watch it here on Rappler. – Rappler.com

MORE ON 'BASAGAN NG TRIP'

On using the term 'Filipino'

Is human rights relevant to Filipinos?

Whom to trust – journalists or social media stars?

What liberalism, LP, and yellow really mean 

Is Islam violent?

Why a depreciating Philippine peso might be a good thing

What's the government's problem with ride-sharing companies?

Ferdinand Marcos’ great ideas, bad executions

On August 23, 2017, the Philippine Competition Commission (PCC) greenlighted the proposal of Alibaba founder and Chinese tycoon Jack Ma’s Alipay Singapore Holding Pte Ltd (Alipay) to acquire a 45% share in Globe Fintech Innovations, Incorporated (Mynt).

Mynt was formerly wholly-owned by Globe Capital Venture, Incorporated, itself a wholly-owned subsidiary of Globe Telecom, Incorporated.

The PCC decided that based on the facts and circumstances disclosed by the transacting parties, the proposed acquisition would not substantially lessen competition in the relevant market for electronic money payment and related services. Following an in-depth review of the case, the commission found no basis to suspect increased ability or incentive for the parties to engage in foreclosure or anti-competitive behavior in the face of competitive restraints from other incumbent and potential market participants, both domestic and foreign.

A week prior, PCC Chairman Arsenio Balisacan confirmed to the media that the PCC had requested to meet with the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB) about the month-long suspension of Uber’s Philippine operations. The commission was concerned that elevated demand and prices for other ride-sharing services in the absence of viable transportation alternatives affected consumer welfare.

The suspension ended prematurely on August 29 after Uber paid a P190-million fine, in addition to assuring P229.2 million in financial assistance to drivers displaced during the 15-day suspension. Nevertheless, the PCC’s initiation of a dialogue with the LTFRB showed the commission’s agility in responding to the emergence of competition issues. This is a crucial function of the PCC, which must vigilantly monitor and sort out potential threats to socially-beneficial competition, even when the source of such threats is another government agency.

The digital economy democratizes markets

To this day, business deals across all stages of production and distribution in the Philippines are realized or hindered based on familial ties and patronage. As such, market access, financing, and technical expertise remain elusive for many small and unconnected businesses. Digital platforms and services provide small-scale entrepreneurs access to financing, marketing, and distribution networks, allowing them to start up, grow, and connect their business to a vast network of consumers and other firms based within and outside main urban hubs.

For example, the fundamental innovation behind ride-sharing, as popularized by Uber and Grab, was the creation of an accessible and reliable platform for drivers to set up profitable independent operations, while providing riders a centralized and convenient transport option.

Meanwhile, the electronic payments market, which is expected to quickly grow and develop following the Alipay investment in Mynt, provides a means for fast and convenient business-to-business and business-to-customer financing and transactions. The PCC itself expressed a desire to facilitate expansion and innovation in the nascent industry, seeing its potential to serve the needs of unbanked individuals and small businesses.

The digital challenge

Even with full appreciation of the benefits of the digital economy, it is undeniable that the two recent PCC engagements portend the rise of competition issues concerning these new ways of doing business. The digital economy is characterized by a complex value web of interconnected markets with constantly evolving products, participants, and boundaries.

Players in the digital economy leverage modern telecommunications technology and interconnectivity to engage in platform development and use advanced data analytics to serve as intermediaries between different economic sectors. This leads to the prevalence of multi-sided markets, where instead of just buyers and sellers, a platform provider links two or more groups of clients, such as suppliers, advertisers, and consumers.

In addition to electronic financial services and ride-sharing platforms in the cases above, other examples of digital economy operators include online search giant Google, e-commerce aggregators like Lazada and Zalora, entertainment platforms like Netflix, and social media platforms like Facebook, Twitter, and Instagram, among others.

The multi-sided structure of digital markets allows extensive network effects. The network effects in these markets can be direct, that is, on the same side of the market. For example, if more of your friends are on one social networking platform, you would be encouraged to sign up for the same one. There can also be indirect or cross-side effects, like when sellers decide to sign on to an e-commerce aggregator based on customer traffic or when brands and businesses choose social networks to advertise with based on the number of the platform’s active users. Since transactions are processed online at minimal cost, digital economy players can take advantage of such network effects and benefit from increasing returns to scale, leading to massive scalability.

Taken together, multi-sided network effects and increasing returns to scale lead to the tendency of digital markets towards dominance by a single firm or by a few large players. But the markets are multi-sided, and it is relatively easy to move from one digital platform to another. This provides many ways to reach end users, so while specific markets are prone to domination, broadly speaking, the manner of service delivery remains contestable. This staves off complacency on the part of market leaders that still have an incentive to stay at the top of their game and to innovate to keep their position. Therefore, in the digital economy, market power and dominance may not necessarily imply harmful consumer and competitive effects traditionally associated with monopolies.

But competition authorities traditionally look into the accrual of market power and the potential abuses that firms or groups of firms may perpetrate to the disadvantage of competitors and consumers. They employ frameworks that assess markets and determine appropriate policy interventions depending on the relevant market identified, established dominance, and estimated likelihood or proof of perpetration of abusive or anti-competitive conduct. They observe patterns in pricing and market share, among others.

The distinctive features of the digital economy challenge traditional frameworks for competition policy enforcement, requiring a shift in approach from rigid conceptions of market boundaries to the development of new theories of harm, depending on evolving business models; from reliance on pricing signals to the proactive design of incentives for innovation; and from evaluations of static efficiency to a greater consideration of dynamic efficiency in the multiple interrelated markets.

International debate: The case of Google

In recent years, the European Commission had pursued charges against online search giant Google. In June 2017, it finally decided to fine Google 2.42 billion euros for abusing its large market share in online search to stifle competition in the comparison shopping market by giving illegal advantage to its Google Shopping service in online search results.

The decision’s key point was that firms must compete on the merits of a product, rather than by leveraging the company’s dominance either in the market for that product or in other markets. The decision called for equal treatment of the platform provider’s own services and rival services in the pertinent market.

On top of this, two other cases under investigation relate to anti-competitive behavior involving the Android operating system and AdSense. The European Commission advised of preliminary decisions leaning on further adverse decisions and fines against Google.

Meanwhile, the United States Federal Trade Commission and the Canadian Competition Bureau had earlier dropped cases against Google based on the direct consumer welfare effects of Google’s actions and the precedent message on innovation an adverse decision would make. They reportedly found insufficient evidence that the company engaged in anti-competitive behavior or abuses of its dominance in the online search market.

The European Commission decision is evidence of its staunch advocacy of ensuring a competitive environment among firms in the tech ecosystem, arguing that fair competition allows other firms to compete and provides consumers with genuine choice and the full benefits of innovation. These divergent actions taken by the world’s major antitrust bodies illustrate potential gray areas in assessing and regulating the anti-competitive behavior of digital market players.

Cultivating a culture of competition

Since the Philippines is in the relatively early stages of competition policy advocacy and enforcement, authorities have latitude in spreading awareness and obtaining buy-in among stakeholders when it comes to understanding the benefits of market competition and adjusting practices to foster a culture of competition. The PCC finds itself in the unique position of being guided but not bound by precedents from jurisdictions with long-established competition regimes, that are themselves reassessing their frameworks in light of the new challenges presented by the digital economy.

Nevertheless, the decisions to be made by the commission in coming months, as it fully implements the Philippine Competition Act, will set the tone for competition regulation in Philippine markets. Taking competence in economic and legal analysis, along with genuine concern for societal welfare, as given, foresight and prudence will serve the commission well in “ensuring businesses compete and consumers benefit” in all markets, traditional and digital. – Rappler.com

Emmanuel M. Garcia is an economist at the Asian Institute of Management Rizalino S. Navarro Policy Center for Competitiveness.The article expresses the author’s views and not necessarily those of the AIM. 

A review of the impeachment procedure, and in particular its genesis and history in the debates of the Constitutional Commission that drafted the Constitution in 1986, clearly shows that impeachment is both political and legal. It is political in that the persons and institutions tasked with impeachment duties are political, but it is legal because rules, including the Bill of Rights, apply and cannot be wantonly disregarded.

The basic principle of due process, in particular, must be followed, and that includes the right of an impeachable official, through counsel, to confront and cross-examine the witnesses that are brought against him or her in the House of Representatives and in the Senate. That right includes being able to object to improper questions being asked of those witnesses.

Another basic due process principle applicable to impeachment procedures is the right of an impeachable official to assistance of counsel. In fact, such assistance of counsel is guaranteed under the Constitution which states that adequate legal assistance shall not be denied to any person by reason of poverty.

There are alarming indications that these basic due process rights will not be afforded Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno by the House Committee on Justice. If these reports are true, the only conclusion is that the impeachment process against the Chief Justice is being railroaded.

The legal framework for impeachment

Everyone agrees that 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 of the 1987 Constitution: culpable violation of the Constitution, treason, bribery, graft and corruption, other high crimes, or betrayal of public trust.

The Supreme Court has decided two major cases on impeachment: the Francisco and Gutierrez cases. Both are instructive of the nature of impeachment.

The Court in Francisco v. Nagmamalasakit na mga Manananggol ng mga Manggagawang Pilipino, clarified that initiation of impeachment referred to in Section 3(5), Art XI of the Constitution “takes place by the act of filing and referral or endorsement of the impeachment complaint to the House Committee on Justice or, by the filing by at least one-third of the members of the House of Representatives with the Secretary General of the House,” thus, the impeachment complaint 1-year time bar should only be counted from this time. This ruling was subsequently upheld in the case of Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice.

Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice, further held that the Rules of Impeachment to be promulgated by Congress need not be published since if the same was the intention of the Constitution then, it would have been expressly provided for. Moreover, publication is only one of the several modes by which Congress can publicly announce the rules it promulgates for impeachment. The case also held that the “one offense per complaint rule” as found in the Rules of Criminal Procedure does not apply in impeachment cases since the “Constitution allows the indictment for multiple impeachment offenses, with each charge representing an article of impeachment, assembled in one set known as the "Articles of Impeachment." It, therefore, follows that an impeachment complaint need not allege only one impeachable offense.”

Impeachment, as held in Gutierrez v. House of Representatives Committee on Justice, is primarily for the protection of the people as a body politic, and not for the punishment of the offender. However, as Commissioner Ricardo Romulo clarified during the deliberations and drafting of the 1987 Constitution, the impeachment procedure is analogous to a criminal trial even as it is not.

Even as it is political, certain judicial procedures may apply in an impeachment process whether at the stage of hearing the charges in the House of Representatives or during the trial in the Senate. 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. That also means the right to confront, among others by cross-examination through counsel, adverse witnesses. Additionally, the rules of court apply in a suppletory manner to impeachment proceedings in both the House and the Senate.

Pursuant to this, the House of Representatives and the Senate of the 15^th Congress have promulgated their own rules of impeachment, Rules of Procedure in Impeachment Proceedings adopted on August 3, 2010 and Resolution No. 39 Resolution Adopting the Rules of Procedure on Impeachment Trials adopted on March 23, 2011, respectively.

To emphasize the dual character of impeachment as both a political and legal process, the House has assigned impeachment to the Committee of Justice.

Cross-examination of impeachment witnesses

The 1987 Constitution provides for clear safeguards and guidelines to be followed by Congress to ensure that it does not act arbitrarily and oppressively in impeachment proceedings. 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 be absolutely respected.

This is why the impeachment rules of the House of Representatives afford the complainant and the respondent the rights to examine and cross-examine, albeit subject to reasonable time limits. As the counsels of Chief Justice Sereno have pointed out in a letter sent to Committee on Justice Chair Reynaldo Umali, dated Thursday, September 28, 2017:

“Unlike other rules of procedure for the determination of 'probable cause,' the House Rules do not prohibit the parties from examining or cross-examining witnesses. On the contrary, the House Rules allow both “examination” and “cross-examination” of witnesses. Section 6 of the House Rules provides that the Hon. Committee, 'through the Chairperson, may limit the period of examination and cross-examination.'  Indeed, it would make no sense to declare the Hon. Committee’s prerogative to impose reasonable time limits on direct and cross examination questions, if these rights are not available in the first place.”

Sereno’s lawyers also observed that Representative Umali was quoted by a newspaper as saying that the Chief Justice has the constitutional right to confront the witnesses. Indeed, if Umali in fact made these statements, the Committee of Justice Chair must agree that she should then be allowed to cross-examine those witnesses through her counsel. 

According to the lawyers: “It would not be acceptable for Committee members to conduct the cross-examination themselves, because at this stage of the process, they are judges or quasi-judges whose duty, like the 'investigating officer' in preliminary investigations, is to determine probable cause. Preliminary investigations are essentially judicial proceedings. The Committee Members will become prosecutors and not mere investigating officers only when the impeachment process reaches the Senate which will act as the impeachment court.“

In this regard, the lawyers of the Chief Justice have asked the Committee on Justice to confirm that all persons testifying as witnesses or as “resource persons” against the Chief Justice may be cross-examined by her counsel on her behalf. They have also rightly asserted that the Chief Justice, through counsel, has the right to object to improper questions during the direct examination of complainant’s witnesses.

On the Chief Justice doing the cross-examination herself, as suggested by Representative Umali, I strongly suggest that she decline such an offer. That is clearly a trap. Moreover, it is beneath her office to do that. We saw what happened to Chief Justice Renato Corona when he attempted to speak in the Senate, how that backfired when he tried to assert the dignity of his office.

I personally know many of the members of the House Committee on Justice. Most of them are lawyers. They know the basics of fairness and due process. I cannot imagine them not affording due process to any one, and especially to the highest judicial official of the country.

Denying the reasonable requests of Sereno’s lawyers would violate the due process rights of Chief Justice Sereno. It would be tantamount to railroading her impeachment. Sereno would have no recourse but to raise this either to the Supreme Court or to the Senate in a motion to dismiss. In my view, this would be a ground to stop impeachment early on, thanks to the House Committee of Justice. It will be an additional reason to acquit Sereno if, in fact, the House sends this to the Senate for trial. – Rappler.com

Itago muna ang aklat,
Isantabi ang plakard,
Saka na lang ang uno.
Bes, magbo-bonfire tayo!

– Rappler.com

Artwork by Raffy de Guzman
Text by Miriam Grace A. Go

#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.

I joined Rappler by chance but I stayed by choice.

I remember soaking wet under the rain as a 13-year-old little girl with half a kilo of rice in hand. I was passing a nearby school on the way home and I heard students – about my age – reading a poem together.

Maybe next year, I thought, my family would be able to save enough money so I could go back to school. (READ: I'm not from one of the best schools. So what?)

I knew we had financial problems, but it was at that moment that it really hit me that we were very poor. I knew it was not right that I was not in school. I knew we needed help, but I didn’t know where to get it. To find hope in a hopeless place was a challenge and my family fought that battle every day. At that time, I wished for my story to be shared because maybe, it would move someone to fight for or with me.

Early on, I was aware of the power of storytelling. A decade later, in 2012, I joined Rappler because I continue to believe in that power.

My objective was simple: to overcome poverty. When I finally did, I dreamed that others overcome poverty too.

It was a risk to leave a famous TV network for a new brand with no certainty of stability 5 years ago but I stayed because I found myself in a place with people who share the same idealistic dream. Here, we are constantly pushed to make it happen.

Nowadays, we are targeted because we stay true and do not succumb to pressure. This company has encountered a number of storms (literally and figuratively), but we have survived and thrived. I am most proud, though, of the fact that 5 years later, our values remain.

To be Rappler is to tell truthful stories.
To be Rappler is to be accountable. 
To be Rappler is to fight for others. 
To be Rappler is to remember that public service is not about money, fame, and engagement.
To be Rappler is to uphold the values of humanity in the face of hatred and anger. 
To be Rappler is to #InspireCourage in the face of oppression, threats, and attacks. 
To be Rappler is to take a stand against the abuse of power. 
To be Rappler is to fight for the truth no matter how hard.

Behind the stories that you read on Rappler are real people, who made a decision to stay in this profession even if it's under duress more than ever nowadays. Meet more of us and get to know the reasons why we're here:

{source}

<iframe src="https://web.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.facebook.com%2Fpaigeoccenola%2Fposts%2F10155818247738594&width=500" width="100%" height="745" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

<iframe src="https://web.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.facebook.com%2Fkcabal25%2Fposts%2F10154700326887391&width=500" width="100%" height="274" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

<iframe src="https://web.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.facebook.com%2Fnilevilla%2Fposts%2F10212743099666082&width=500" width="100%" height="299" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

<iframe src="https://web.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.facebook.com%2Fjanessavillamera%2Fposts%2F10156692452003539&width=500" width="100%" height="623" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

<iframe src="https://web.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.facebook.com%2Fmadmilkmargie%2Fposts%2F10155880415650921&width=500" width="100%" height="728" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

<iframe src="https://web.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.facebook.com%2Fdkhapal%2Fposts%2F1358048800960069&width=500" width="100%" height="496" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

<iframe src="https://web.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.facebook.com%2Fbonz.magsambol%2Fposts%2F10212468324856617&width=500" width="100%" height="623" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

<iframe src="https://web.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.facebook.com%2Fraisa.serafica%2Fposts%2F10210114947093169&width=500" width="100%" height="299" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

<iframe src="https://web.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.facebook.com%2Fcjmaglunog%2Fposts%2F2186571974702348&width=500" width="100%" height="709" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe> {/source}

Everyone can be a Rappler. Meet Lou Guepela, a disaster risk reduction advocate and Mover for Agos. 

{source}

<iframe src="https://web.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fweb.facebook.com%2Flou.gepuela%2Fposts%2F1552003778176242&width=500" width="100%" height="573" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true"></iframe>

{/source}

The truth is under siege and we will continue to fight for it, but we cannot do it alone. Help us fight for this cause. Help us stay free and independent of political pressure and commercial interests. #SupportRappler. Be a Rappler. – Rappler.com

Neither poetry nor logic is Rodrigo Duterte's strong suit. So, if you see no rhyme or reason in what he says or does, don't search; there's none. He goes off on impulse, as triggered.

That's why he swings from one extreme position to the other. He vowed, for instance, to sail the West Philippine Sea bearing his nation's flag and to plant it in an island grabbed by the Chinese, only to capitulate, even kowtow, to them later. With the local communists, his relationship has been a love-hate one, as reflected in the on-again-off-again peace talks between them and the government. And to the United States, for which he has had only the worst epithets, he suddenly warms up, declaring himself "your humble friend."

If Duterte shows any consistency in anything at all, it's in his relentless and ruthless war on drugs, but that's only because it's about the only trick this pony knows. He prosecutes this war with a killer's instinct, although that instinct seems prejudiced against the poor. The characteristic illogic here is that the poor make up most, if not nearly all, of the thousands of dead in the war's first year alone, yet he had always made a dramatic case of being once a poor boy himself.

Anyway, his poor-boy story had its own limited run. He had to revise it once suitably triggered again, this time to portray himself as a scion of a landed family coming to a P3-million inheritance as a teenager more than 50 years ago.

Possibly, Duterte's new tale was inspired by a tipoff that the Office of the Ombudsman had gotten hold of bank records that lend credence to charges of unexplained wealth brought against Duterte by Senator Antonio Trillanes IV. Sure and soon enough, the tipoff proved correct; the overall deputy ombudsman, Arthur Carandang, confirmed that his and Trillanes' documents are “more or less" a match. Trillanes had asked the Ombudsman, former Supreme Court Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, to look into the case, but she inhibited herself, being an aunt of Duterte's son-in-law, and passed the task to Carandang, who found that, indeed, Duterte had a lot of explaining to do.

If Duterte had been prescient enough to put his inheritance in 3 pieces of property in Forbes Park, the premier rich man's ghetto, in Makati, and sold now, he would have realized a billion pesos, precisely equal the amount shown to have found its way into his family's bank accounts. But Carandang's and Trillanes' documents show no such simple transactions; they show, rather, sums flowing across a network of bank accounts.

Trillanes did not say where he got his documents. In his own case, Carandang points to the Anti-Money Laundering Council, but it denies being the source. In any case, the Office of the Ombudsman says that it "stands by its word." And responding to Duterte's threat to have the office investigated for corruption, it says that it "shall not be intimidated" and that it in fact "welcomes... efforts to help it cleanse its ranks."

At any rate, the unsorted question about who provided the bank records loses much of its relevance in the glare of the damning evidence the records themselves reveal. Understandably, any anomaly involving the president – in particular a president so easily provoked to retaliate as Duterte – is most likely to disperse blamable functionaries. As it happens, the chairman of the Anti-Money Laundering Council is Duterte's recent appointee as Central Bank governor.

To be sure, taking on the president – any president – under any circumstances is sensitive business, to say the least. For one thing, the president cannot be sued while in office. He may be impeached by the House of Representatives and tried by the Senate, but the prospect is an improbable one for Duterte since he commands a massive majority in both houses.

All that immunity, however, does not shield him from being investigated and revealed for wrongdoing. In fact, with his net worth, he is required by law to be truthful and transparent, and that's precisely the duty Trillanes and Carandang are trying to get Duterte to fulfill, so that the people's right to know may be satisfied. – Rappler.com

The first time it happened, Joy decided right away that she needed to terminate her pregnancy. Her friends told her about pills she could take to induce an abortion. She bled for days and was so weak she could not even stand. The stomach contractions felt like her abdomen was being crushed. She didn’t tell anyone except her friends that she was pregnant – not her family and not the boy who had gotten her pregnant.

Joy was 15 years old.

The second time it she got pregnant, Joy decided to do things differently. Her boyfriend JR who works as a porter in a cargo truck yard had a job and could provide for her and their baby. She moved in with him and they now have two children together.

Joy is 18 years old. Her partner JR is 35 years old.

She laughed at their age gap and sheepishly admited that she is at times embarrassed to be seen in public with him. “With his beard, he looks much older now. Sometimes, I tell him not to walk too close to me.”

Still, Joy said she is happy with their relationship. “At least, he has a job and can provide for us.”

Multiplying teen pregnancies

This is the face of teen pregnancy in the Philippines: rampant, frequent, most common among poor and educated women. Mothers have just entered their teens and fathers are sometimes twice their age. 

Every day, there are about 500 Filipino teenagers like Joy who become mothers. The Philippines has one of the highest teen pregnancy rates in the region.

Government statistics show that more than 18,000 girls between the ages of 15-19 years old have already had two children and another almost 3,000 girls of that age group already have had 3.

“It’s like a floodgate has opened. Once a teen gets pregnant, she is likely to get pregnant again and again,” said Perci Former Commissioner of the National Youth Commission (NYC). (WATCH: Teen Pregnancy Forum here)

During an information caravan on reproductive health, the Democratic Socialist Women of the Philippines received two reports of 9-year-old girls getting pregnant; one in Camarines Sur and the other in Iloilo. The youngest reported maternal death was 11 years old.

There is no hard data yet on the number of teenage girls who are in relationships with much older men, but adolescent medicine specialist Dr Emma Llanto says she sees about 10-15 teen mothers every Wednesday – the clinic schedule specifically designated for teen mothers.

Most expectant mothers are between 16-18 years old but Llanto is seeing an increasing number of younger girls. The youngest patient Llanto has seen in her clinic was 14. Llanto has also noted an increasing number of women in relationships with much older men.

Pregnancies resulting from incest often go unreported. 

“Most of the time they have no idea about how their bodies work. They have absolutely no idea what contraceptives even mean,” lamented Llanto.

Many, particularly those in relationships with much older men, don’t have the knowledge or power to negotiate their use birth control. Joy’s boyfriend JR does not know she is using birth control.

“He wants us to have a lot of children which I don’t want. Hello, life is hard! He has a job, but it’s not as if he is rich,”Joy told me, sounding very much like the 18-year-old that she is.

The cost of teen pregnancy

Some consequences of teen pregnancy are: it's easy to identify girls who can’t finish school, their developing bodies are not fully equipped to take on the demands of pregnancy, the babies they give birth to are most likely to be malnourished or suffer from neglect. But the ramifications stretch out over an entire lifetime.

“Adolescents who have begun childbearing before the age of 18 are less likely to complete secondary education. This impacts employment opportunities in the future and total life earnings of families. Taking further the net estimated effect of early childbearing on high school completion rate and foregone earnings, it roughly equates to annual losses of P33 billion pesos for the country,” said Klaus Beck UNFPA country representative in the Philippines.

A 2016 study supported by the United Nations Population Fund (UNFPA) mapped out the snowballing economic cost of teen pregnancy in a young girl’s life.

Health economist Dr Alejandro Herrin presented the study at a forum in August last year and explained that completing high school education increases daily wage rates of women by P300. At age 20, a girl who began childbearing before age 18 may earn only about P46 a day, compared to the P361 per day estimate for one who completed high school and did not get pregnant early.

“When taken all together, the potential lifetime earnings lost due to early childbearing is P33 billion which is equal to 1.1% of our gross domestic product in 2012,” Herrin said at the forum.

Addressing teen pregnancy

The real tragedy of teen pregnancy is that it is completely preventable. In most parts of the world, teen pregnancy rates are declining.

Our rising number of teen mothers is a reflection of our continued denial of the problem and refusal to acknowledge what has been proven to work in managing teen pregnancy: keeping and giving girls incentives to stay in school, sex education not limited to abstinence and access to reproductive health services. Most importantly, stretching the imagination to think of ways to go around the legal barriers that prevent teens from securing low-cost birth control.

Five years after the Reproductive Health Law (RH Law) was passed, the Department of Education has yet to fully implement the comprehensive sexuality education mandated by the RH Law. The Department of Health has yet to capitalize on social media as a cost-efficient and effective launch platform for a massive information campaign on safe sex targeted at the youth. Social media would be particularly useful in pushing messages to teens who are no longer in school and are typically more vulnerable to risky sexual behavior.

There are more complex barriers, for sure. The legalities that prohibit minors from getting access to RH services without parental consent, the age of consent pegged at 12 (and one of the lowest in the world), and the Supreme Court Temporary Restraining Order on contraceptives that is still being ironed out, for starters. But interventions proven to be effective are basic: sex education and birth control. These interventions are urgently needed and with some imagination, can be delivered despite the legal barriers.

“Teen pregnancy is a failure of the whole system: the community, the family, the individual and the government,” said Dr. Jigs Danila of the Department of Health. – Rappler.com

April 28, 2015 – the day when one of the most successful online movements happened. 

Who would have thought that social media could become much more than a platform for selfies?

I could still remember it. I was on my way to school when I learned that the execution of the convicted Filipino drug mule in Indonesia, Mary Jane Veloso, could happen that night. I was startled and saddened by the news thinking that overnight, two helpless children could possibly lose their mother. Her case was hopeless given that Indonesia has some of the strictest anti-drug laws, as drug-related offenses are penalized with death penalty. Only a miracle could save her from death row.

I personally believe that she was just a victim – a victim of illegal recruitment and a victim of the faulty system of the Philippine government. Mary Jane represents many unfortunate Filipinos who try their luck abroad and endure the pain of being away with their families because of poverty. 

When news of her supposed execution broke online, Rappler through its civic engagement arm MovePH joined the call of the online movement #SaveMaryJane, which sparked a global conversation. On the night that the Indonesian government announced that the execution will push through, petitioners held on to the tiniest inch of hope that they could save Mary Jane. And before dawn of April 29, the miracle happened, and #MaryJaneLives.

"This is a huge and rare for a petition from the Philippines... MovePH was instrumental in making this happen," said Change.org senior campaigner Christine Roque. (READ: How the viral petition to save Mary Jane Veloso reached Jokowi)

When I first learned about Rappler in 2012, I already figured out what I wanted to do after graduation. As a development communication practitioner, I had always wondered how I could apply the values and principles of the discipline in mass media. After working for a year in a TV network, I found myself in Rappler. I found myself in an institution that values the impact of community service over commercial interests.

Rappler produces stories that make people act on social issues that matter to them. We expose the wrongdoings of leaders and hold them accountable. We tell the nation's stories. Going beyond traditional reporting, we mobilize citizens to help each other in times of disaster. We create communities online and offline, where smart conversations take place. Despite the attacks we've been receiving, we remain strong and committed to the public we serve.

On October 3, I’ll be marking my first year at Rappler. Cliche as it sounds, my experience has been a rollercoaster ride.

As part of the social media team of Rappler, I've seen the worst of social media. I deal with dreadful comments almost every day of my life. We've been called "bayaran," "dilawan," "bias," and more profane words. Inspite of the hateful comments, we see hope in people like us, who fight for the truth and democracy.

In this era of fake news and misinformation, Rappler’s work in producing in-depth stories is needed more than ever. Help us produce more groundbreaking investigative pieces. Be with us in this crusade against disinformation. Support free and fearless journalism. – Rappler.com

What drives people to change their behavior for the better? Insights from the field are yielding surprising answers.

Imagine a typical development project – whether it’s run by the government, an international agency, or an NGO. It’s probably grounded on a very elaborate program framework, with outcomes, outputs, activities, and metrics for each component. For complex issues like health, environment, education, or poverty, these programs almost always need to address multiple factors, like governance, policy, enforcement, access, etc. 

Lately, we’ve been turning our attention to a central piece of the puzzle – human behavior. What do we really need to do in order to get mothers to give birth in hospitals instead of at home, local communities to stop cutting mangroves for charcoal, fishers to stop using dynamite, or parents to keep their children in school?   

When I was still working in advertising, one of the first things we would ask during a brainstorming session was, “What’s the insight?” This meant pondering over such things as, what was the big realization that we had uncovered about the product, the users, or even the category, which would help us come up with a fresh approach to talk about our brand in a way that was relevant to the audience? 

In today’s terminology, we would be saying, “Saan galing ang hugot?”

If you’re asking someone to buy a brand of shampoo, it wouldn’t be such a difficult decision: they know that if they don’t like the product, they can easily switch back to their old brand. But when it comes to development issues, hugot is even more important.

For someone who believes that illegal fishing is the only thing keeping his family alive, is there really anything you can do to convince him to stop? For a mother who has never set foot outside her village, the idea of a hilot who comes and helps her care for her children while she recovers her strength after childbirth is so much more comforting than going to a sterile medical facility filled with strangers. 

Unfortunately, many development projects have not succeeded in moving beyond the "IEC" mindset. In the past, project designs incorporated a component for Information, Education and Communication. But as anyone who has eaten one cake slice too many will tell you, just because you know something is bad for you doesn’t mean you will stop doing it.

The good news is that we’re learning, and now, more development projects – led notably by the health sector – are stressing the need for behavior change communications. This has led to better designed programs that address the barriers that prevent people from doing the right thing. One example is the emphasis on mother- and child-friendly birthing facilities, where health workers are trained to be more empathetic to their patients.

Identifying that all-important hugot is at the heart of our mission at Rare, where part of our work involves training local conservation leaders how to develop community campaigns to get people to practice more sustainable fishing. We teach them how to get into the minds of the fishers they work with, and find the hugot that would lead to behavior change.

In one of our communities in Camarines Sur, we got to know Mang Berting Refugio, a self-confessed former dynamite fisher who now heads the local Bantay Dagat. Through many conversations with him, we realized that while sending his many children through school was the reason he practiced dynamite fishing, they were also the reason why he stopped. When the Bantay Dagat was formed in his area and he saw how they were seen as role models in their community, he decided he didn’t want his children to be ashamed of him, so he resolved to stop and signed up as an enforcer instead. 

Such insights find their way into many of the campaigns developed by our conservation fellows – in Mang Berting’s case, being a positive role model in the community can actually outweigh purely financial gain.

Erez Yoeli, co-director of the Yale Applied Cooperation Team and research scientist at Harvard, who recently joined us on a behavior insights mission to Bicol, noted that strengthening these social norms is critical to long-term behavior change.

So for a program to work, and for change to really stick, it never hurts for people working in development to pause and look up from the program framework, do a deep dive in the communities they are working in, and dig deep to unearth the insights that drive behavior.

'Pag may hugot, mas may chance ang forever. – Rappler.com

Rocky Sanchez Tirona is the vice president of Rare, an international conservation NGO, in the Philippines. Previously, she served as the creative director and managing director for Campaigns Social Response of the advertising firm Campaigns & Grey.

Ilang buhay na ba ang winasak ng hazing?

Sa pagkamatay ni Horacio Castillo III sa hazing, na-deja vu tayo at nanumbalik ang pagkamatay nina Anthony Javier, Christian dela Cruz, Ariel Inofre, Guillo Servando, Marc Andre Marcos, Marvin Reglos, EJ Karl Intia, Menardo Clamucha Jr, Elvis Sinaluan, Chester Paolo Abracia, Cris Anthony Mendez, Roland Cequiña, Mark Rodriguez, Marlon Villanueva, Rafael Albano, Edward Domingo, Dominante Tunac, Ace Bernabe Ekid, Alexander Miguel Icasiano, Oliver Estrella, Mervin Sarmiento, Mark Roland Martin, Joselito Hernandez at si Lenny Villa noong 1995. May 9 pang namatay bago si Lenny at ang pinakaunang biktima ay si Gonzalo Mariano Albert noong 1954.  

1954 pa may namamatay sa hazing. Pawang nasa edad 17-25. At ‘yan lamang ang naitalang kaso ng media. Marami pang pagkamatay na pinaghihinalaang dulot ng hazing.

{source}

<img src="https://assets.rappler.com/FE550BDC1D7147A9ADC5AC8CDF5AC4E8/img/D2234E89803C440E9359993F37A7467E/animated-hazing-philippines.gif" width="100%"> {/source}

Ang umaasang mapabilang sa kapatiran, ngayon ay malamig nang bangkay. Kasama ng huling hininga naglaho ang lahat ng pangarap sampu ng pagsisikap ng magulang. Wasak din ang kinabukasan ng mga nang-hazing na nasakdal at nahatulan, ‘yun nga lang, buhay pa sila.

Ano ba ang gayuma ng fraternity sa kabila ng mga pagkamatay na ito? Para sa mga sumanib sa fraternity at sorority, dala nito ang pangako ng koneksyon, trabaho, at maging mga pwesto sa gobyerno.

Halimbawa, namamayagpag ngayon ang Lex Taleonis, ang frat ni Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte. Matagal nang naghahari ang mga miyembro ng Sigma Rho, Upsilon Sigma Phi, Aquila Legis, Tau Gamma Phi, at Beta Sigma sa mga pasilyo ng kapangyarihan. 

Malalim ang hugot ng fraternity. Sa mga bihasa sa mga palakad ng organisasyon sa kolehiyo, alam ng lahat na iba ang hatak ng frat. Andyan ang sikretong ritwal, ang blood compact ng barkadismo, ang shared experience ng tortyur.  Lahat ng barbarong aspeto nito’y nakaugat sa isang machong kulturang nagpapahalaga sa kapatiran ng kalalakihan. Dahil kapatiran din ito ng pagbabakuran ng kapangyarihan. 

Ito ang old boys club sa Kongreso at gobyerno, at maging sa mga korporasyon. Mas mahalaga kung sino ang kilala mo, sa kung ano ang alam at kaya mo.

Pero may hangganan ang kapatiran. “Together we stand, divided we fall” ba kamo? Mag-brod si Ferdinand Marcos at Ninoy Aquino na naging mortal na magkatunggali sa kasaysayan ng Pilipinas. Mag-brod din si Senador Juan Ponce Enrile at si Frank Drilon, pero magkalaban sila sa pulitika. Sis na naturingan ni Congressman Rey Umali si Senadora Leila de Lima, pero di naman ito naging hadlang sa pagsasampa niya ng kaso sa dating justice secretary. Di rin niya ito ipinagtanggol sa harap ng garapal na pangungutya ng mga kapwa kongresista sa hearing na naging tsismis session sa lovelife ng Senadora. Malinaw naman na sa larangan ng pulitika, there are no permanent brods or sis, only permanent interests.

Ano ba ang silbi ng fraternities sa lipunan? Di maitatatwa na may nagagawang mabuti ang mga fraternity na ito tulad ng civic projects at fund raisers. Pero ganoon din ang naparaming organisasyon sa pamantasan na walang kultura ng hazing at initiation. Katumbas ba ng mga proyektong ito ang mga buhay ng nawala dahil sa hazing? Necessary evil ba ang fraternity?  

Ang kaso ni Lenny Villa ang naging mitsa sa pagbubuo ng Anti-Hazing Law. Nananatili ang batas na inutil at walang ngipin, isang “regulatory” legislation na hindi ginagawang kriminal ang magsagawa ng hazing, mapa-psychological o pisikal man. Ginawa ngang kriminal ang libel, pero hindi ang hazing? Nawa'y maging makabuluhan ang pagsusuri ng mga mambabatas ng inutil na batas.

Bahagi ang hazing ng kulturang Pinoy na lihim na yumayakap sa karahasan. Tulad ng TokHang at rambol, hindi ito mawawala hangga’t pinapahalagahan natin ang kamao higit sa karapatang pantao. Habang may mga dean o opisyal ng mga unibersidad na nagsasabing walang masama sa pagsali sa fraternities. Habang pinapalakpakan natin ang mga pinunong nagpapamura ng buhay. 

Kung tutuusin, bahagi lamang ang hazing ng kulto ng kapangyarihan at barbarismo. – Rappler.com

Make no mistake: It’s downhill from here for Rodrigo Duterte. But the beginning of the unravelling may also initiate a dangerous period for the country, as the President may conclude that only extraordinary measures like martial law could reverse his presidency’s slide into crisis.

What has changed in the last few weeks? It’s that intangible but definitely very real thing called “moral momentum” that we associate with team sports like basketball. It was moral momentum stemming from his electoral victory with 40% of the vote on May 9, 2016 that propelled Duterte’s political offensive in the year that followed, allowing him to ride roughshod over concerns about violations of human rights and due process in his war on drugs, convert Congress into a compliant tool, sideline the Supreme Court, and intimidate the Catholic Church hierarchy. 

Moral momentum provided a seemingly invulnerable shield as he encouraged the police to kill with impunity, branded drug users as non-human, made rape into a laughing matter, and sent Senator Leila de Lima to jail on trumped up charges to settle a personal score. This sense of invulnerability was communicated to his followers, who used social media to crucify anyone who dared to question the Duterte line, posting on Facebook an unceasing flow of invectives and threats, like calling for the execution of journalists Raissa Robles and Maria Ressa and the rape of Senator Risa Hontiveros.

The strange thing about moral momentum is that it can disappear owing to the conjuncture of a number of circumstances and elements. One day you’re riding high. The next day you’re adrift.

Losing moral momentum

Analysts will long debate when Duterte lost moral momentum. In my view, Duterte’s reversal of fortune was triggered by the same phenomenon that has undone past ambitious authoritarians: overreach. What constituted overreach was a concatenation of events and developments in August and September.

The shocking news that a record 81 people were slain by police in 4 days in mid-August was immediately followed by the even more shocking news in the days to come that teenagers Kian delos Santos, Reynaldo de Guzman, and Carl Angelo Arnaiz had been abducted and killed, with Kian’s abduction by the Caloocan police captured on CCTV. Shock turned into anger, and among Duterte supporters, enthusiasm into disorientation, as evident in the sharp drop in their Facebook posts defending the regime. 

Then came the scandal of the P6.4-billion shipment of shabu tied to Duterte’s son, Paolo, about which the President was eerily quiet, followed by Duterte’s allies in Congress giving the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) a P1,000-budget for 2018, and, most recently, by Duterte’s vengeful threat to investigate the Ombudsman’s office in retaliation for its decision to investigate his family’s finances.

Instead of awing the citizenry as before, these events exposed a sense of entitlement, of being above the law, and a conviction that one could get away with anything. Suddenly, nobody but the most fanatical followers would clap at the President’s drama queen antics, like his recent challenge to Supreme Court Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales to resign along with him.

Few boots on the ground

Duterte, the instinctive politician that he is, was most likely worried by the mobilizations of September 21, the impact of which he preemptively tried to defuse by declaring that day a “day of protest.” It was not just the thousands that filled Mendiola, Luneta, and the CHR grounds that probably alarmed him but how, despite all his government’s resources, the pro-Duterte counter-rallies in Mendiola and Plaza Miranda could assemble only a few thousand participants, most of them government workers bussed from places like Caloocan and San Jose del Monte.

The polls may indicate that Duterte remains popular, but that does not mean people are willing to exhibit their allegiance to him, much less defend him in the crunch. His Facebook supporters may be vicious on the net, but most are not street activists. These people are cyberwarriors, many of them protected by anonymity, who would probably be at a loss on how to chant and behave at a rally.

Dr Herbert Docena of the University of the Philippines draws out the implications of Malacanang’s inability to translate its support into boots on the ground:

“What does this tell us? That compared to those he idolizes [Mussolini and Hitler], Duterte is still so far nothing but a second-rate copycat: He wants to be, or he postures as, a fascist but he can't even be a proper one. That should be a cause for optimism and for intensified organizing: Yesterday showed not only how strong the resistance is and could become, it also showed just how weak Duterte really is and how isolated he is fast becoming. His regime rests less on active popular support and more on coercion; he is better at having people killed than inspiring and mobilizing them to defend him. It is no longer a question of *if* but when his regime will fall – and what will replace it.”

Popularity, Duterte should realize, is evanescent, and without an organized mass base, one is vulnerable to EDSA-type people power movements. Cabinet Secretary Jun Evasco, a former progressive turned into Duterte’s henchman, has been promoting over the last few months a fascist mass formation, the Kilusang Pagbabago (KP), but his initiative has not received much support from the President, it has received little funding, and other Duterte allies like the Pimentels and Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez have been worried that the KP may displace the ruling party, PDP-Laban. Reinvigorating KP at this point might be too late.

The martial law option

With the rise of resistance exemplified by the September 21 rallies, Duterte might now want to move quickly to impose martial law nationally to advance his authoritarian agenda. The problem he faces is that even if the subservient Congress and the Supreme Court majority were to support this move, the military high command has tremendous reservations, since the Armed Forces does not have the resources to impose martial law effectively nationwide and the generals know that the surest way to elicit challenges from junior officers is to be seen as accomplices in converting the AFP into Duterte’s personal instrument.

Yet, worried by the growing opposition, Duterte may, in fact, miscalculate and declare martial law, which may temporarily slow his regime’s descent into crisis but actually accelerate it in the medium-term.

The maleficent seven

Politics is unpredictable, and things can either unravel very quickly from now on or we might be entering a more fluid period, where the regime, depending on circumstances, can have periods of recovery, followed by phases of retreat. But there is no doubt that the overall trajectory from now on is downhill. 

If there is any indication of which direction the wind is blowing, it’s the behavior of the “Maleficent Seven in the Senate.” Some people are puzzled why Sotto, Gordon, Villar, Pacquiao, Pimentel, Zubiri, and Honasan are so angry about their signatures not being attached to a resolution condemning the killing of minors in Duterte’s anti-drug war. Why does Sotto devote a whole privilege speech reacting to a blog calling him and his buddies “Malacañang Dogs”? It’s simple. It’s their sniffing, with their finely honed opportunistic sense of where the wind is blowing, that their patron is no longer invulnerable, and it’s time to say distancia, amigo. 

But it’s too late, guys. Duterte’s tattoo is all over you, and, like the triad tattoo, it’s indelible. – Rappler.com

*Rappler contributor Walden Bello is National Chairman of the recently formed coalition Laban ng Masa.  He made the only resignation on principle in the history of the Congress of the Philippines in March 2015 owing to differences with President Benigno Aquino III over the latter’s double standards in the fight against corruption, his refusal to take command responsibility for the tragic Mamasapano raid, and his negotiating the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States.

First of 2 parts

The Constitution, laws, and jurisprudence empower Ombudsman Conchita Carpio Morales to investigate and prosecute President Rodrigo Duterte and the most guilty parties for the mass murder of civilians being perpetrated by the Philippine National Police on a grand scale.

The Ombudsman can investigate and prosecute them for "Other Crimes Against Humanity" in the form of "willful killing," pursuant to Section 6[a] of Republic Act 9851 or the Philippine Act on Crimes Against International Humanitarian Law, Genocide, and Other Crimes Against Humanity.

Under Section 7, RA 9851 penalizes this offense with reclusion perpetua or 40 years imprisonment, and P500,000 to P1 million fine.

The Philippine state, through the independent Office of the Ombudsman, is legally obligated to investigate and prosecute Duterte under RA 9851, aided by the Rome Statute of the International Criminal Court, for allegedly inciting and condoning the mass murder of civilians. This is pursuant to the letter and spirit of RA 9851 and the Rome Statute (July 17, 1998).

The President does not have real immunity from criminal prosecution for genocide, war crimes, and other crimes against humanity penalized under RA 9851. This fact becomes even more glaring when the Rome Statute came into force in the Philippines on November 1, 2011.

Jus cogens

Together with RA 9851 and the Rome Statute, the Pinochet decision of the UK House of Lords as well as the Nuremberg Charter and judgment serve as authority for the position that Duterte can be investigated, prosecuted, and tried before Philippine courts even as a sitting president for core international crimes. Jus cogens (compelling and binding law), or peremptory norms of customary international law, hold heads of state liable for criminal prosecution under the concept of universal jurisdiction.

In Regina v Bartle (UK House of Lords, March 24, 1999), Lord Browne-Wilkinson says:

The jus cogens nature of the international crime of torture justifies states in taking universal jurisdiction over torture wherever committed. International law provides that offences jus cogens may be punished by any state because the offenders are “common enemies of all mankind and all nations have an equal interest in their apprehension and prosecution” (citation omitted)

Lord Browne-Wilkinson further cites from Sir Arthur Watts’ The Legal Position in International Law of Heads of States, Heads of Government and Foreign Ministers:

“The idea that individuals who commit international crimes are internationally accountable for them has now become an accepted part of international law. Problems in this area… have not affected the general acceptance of the principle of individual responsibility for international criminal conduct.”

“It can no longer be doubted that as a matter of general customary international law a head of state will personally be liable to be called to account if there is sufficient evidence that he authorised or perpetrated such serious international crimes.”

Constitutional mandate

Section 12, Article XI (Accountability of Public Officers) of the 1987 Constitution recognizes the Ombudsman and her deputies “as protectors of the people”:

The Ombudsman and his Deputies, as protectors of the people, shall act promptly on complaints filed in any form or manner against public officials or employees of the Government….

Either “on its own, or on complaint by any person,” the Ombudsman – as protector of the people – has been constitutionally empowered to investigate the President and the most guilty parties for violations of RA 9851, particularly for the offense of "Other Crimes Against Humanity" in the form of "willful killing" (Section 6[a]). This is by virtue of Section 13 of the same article XI:

The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions, and duties:

(1) Investigate on its own, or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public official, employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper, or inefficient.

Section 15(1) of The Ombudsman Act of 1989 (RA 6770) grants the Ombudsman investigatory and prosecutory powers to investigate and prosecute “any public officer or employee,” including the President. It reads:

Section 15. Powers, Functions and Duties.

— The Office of the Ombudsman shall have the following powers, functions and duties:

(1) Investigate and prosecute on its own or on complaint by any person, any act or omission of any public officer or employee, office or agency, when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. It has primary jurisdiction over cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and, in the exercise of his primary jurisdiction, it may take over, at any stage, from any investigatory agency of Government, the investigation of such cases; (my emphasis)

In the context of the ongoing mass murder of civilians by the police, the Ombudsman can direct “upon complaint or at its own instance, any public official or employee of the Government...to perform and expedite any act or duty required by law, or to stop, prevent, and correct any abuse or impropriety in the performance of duties.” (Section 13, Article XI, Constitution)

By virtue of these constitutionally-mandated powers and authority, the Ombudsman can direct the President, the Department of Justice, the National Bureau of Investigation, and other government officials to investigate and prosecute those responsible for the thousands of civilian deaths. She can also direct those officials to institute measures to stop and prevent their recurrence. (READ: Supreme Court asked to order probe into all EJK cases)

Section 13(3), Article XII, Constitution, also says:

Direct the officer concerned to take appropriate action against a public official or employee at fault, and recommend his removal, suspension, demotion, fine, censure, or prosecution, and ensure compliance therewith.

Supreme Court decisions

Jurisprudence affirms the Ombudsman’s authority as well as “plenary and unqualified” investigatory and prosecutory powers. In Ombudsman v Enoc (January 25, 2002), the Supreme Court, citing Uy v Sandiganbayan (March 20, 2001), says:

Indeed, this Court has reconsidered the said ruling and held that the Ombudsman has powers to prosecute not only graft cases within the jurisdiction of the Sandiganbayan but also those cognizable by the regular courts. It held:

The power to investigate and to prosecute granted by law to the Ombudsman is plenary and unqualified. It pertains to any act or omission of any public officer or employee when such act or omission appears to be illegal, unjust, improper or inefficient. The law does not make a distinction between cases cognizable by the Sandiganbayan and those cognizable by regular courts. It has been held that the clause any illegal act or omission of any public official is broad enough to embrace any crime committed by a public officer or employee.

In Castro v Deloria (January 27, 2009), the Supreme Court revisits and further explains Uy:

A judicial interpretation of a statute, such as the Ombudsman Act, constitutes part of that law as of the date of its original passage. Such interpretation does not create a new law but construes a pre-existing one; it merely casts light upon the contemporaneous legislative intent of that law. Hence, the March 20, 2001 Resolution of the Court in Uy interpreting the Ombudsman Act is deemed part of the law as of the date of its effectivity on December 7, 1989. (citation omitted)

The case or cases involving violations of RA 9851 fall under the original and exclusive jurisdiction of regional trial courts specially designated by the Supreme Court to hear and try those cases (Section 18, RA 9851).

Filing of complaints

Any person can initiate and file criminal complaints against Duterte – or any other Philippine president for that matter – for the offense of "Other Crimes Against Humanity" in the form of "willful killing" under Section 6(a) of RA 9851.

The Commission on Human Rights, the Department of Justice, the Philippine National Police, “or other concerned law enforcement agencies shall designate prosecutors or investigators” for violations of RA 9851 (Section 18). It further provides:

The State shall ensure that judges, prosecutors and investigators, especially those designated for purposes of this Act, receive effective training in human rights, International Humanitarian Law and International Criminal Law.

– Rappler.com

(To be concluded)

The author is a lifetime member of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines. He holds a Master of Laws (LLM) degree in American Law for Foreign Lawyers and an LLM in Human Rights (Honors). The views expressed here are exclusively his. He does not represent any group or institution.

The Duterte administration appears on the verge of passing the first installment of a comprehensive package of tax reforms long advocated by many in the policymaking community.

There are a variety of motivations for various parts of the reform – on top of fixing the progressivity and fairness of the income tax system and providing relief to the middle class, the government also seeks to generate over P300 billion in new revenues to help fund its infrastructure programs. In addition, concerns over the lack of competitiveness of Philippine tax rates abound, as our corporate income taxes and personal income taxes (top tier) are among the highest in our region.

Unsurprisingly, some of these goals are often conflicting in their expected impact. Increased revenues from indirect taxes are unlikely to reduce inequality. Removing VAT exemptions, while making the tool more efficient, will likely erode government support for key industries unless especially designed subsidies and support packages are ready.

As expected, the difficult trade-offs in the still-evolving tax package are generating mixed reviews from various groups. Yet, our legislators now have a genuine opportunity to form a coherent narrative on how taxing and spending policies could help promote more inclusive development, improving dramatically from what past administrations have been able to achieve.

Rather than simply focus on tax revenues and growth (through infrastructure spending), this administration can address deep-seated inequality in our society and economy through tax and spending reforms combined. In this note I argue that the Senate version of Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) did not derail TRAIN as some critics suggest – rather it better directed TRAIN toward addressing inequality while preserving some revenues as well.

Tax package evolution

Essentially, the tax reform is comprised of 5 reform packages, and the first package – TRAIN – has the following features. It recalibrates the personal income tax rates to restore progressivity in the income tax schedule, while also introducing and adjusting other taxes to help offset the revenue losses from lower income taxes, and pay for the compensating transfers necessary to protect the poor (e.g., oil tax, automobile levy, sugar-sweetener tax, and removing VAT exemptions).

There are 3 key versions of TRAIN. The DOF version filed with Congress in September 2016; the House of Representatives version (HB 5636) released in May 2017; and the initial Senate version (SB 1592) released earlier this week.

As regards headline revenue targets, the Department of Finance (DOF) version envisioned P157 billion in revenues, while the House version was able to muster revenues of up to P134 billion. An initial estimate of the Senate version pegged its revenues at P59.9 billion. Yet based on recent internal Senate estimates at the time SB 1952 passed the Ways and Means committee level, the revenue potential of the Senate version of TRAIN could be higher, possibly reaching up to P115 billion.

This estimate does not yet include several new taxes proposed by SB 1952, which, among others, include a capital gains tax on non-traded stocks, a tax on cosmetic procedures for aesthetic reasons, and a tax on dividend incomes.

Regardless of where the estimate lies, it is critical to examine the possible trade-off between the goal to hit revenue targets vs the goal to address inequality. 

Strengthening compensating transfers

The Senate version under Senator Sonny Angara’s Committee actually addressed inequality by increasing the transfers to poor and low-income households to P300 per household per month, and by fixing the transfer period to 3 years.

Note that the original DOF version gave only P200 per household per month for one year of transfers, while the House version extended this to 4 years but made the transfers optional. The Senate version gives poor and low-income households a slightly longer runway for adjustment.

As an aside, to help ensure that this temporary ramp up of transfers need not be permanent and could help address other equally valid policy goals, the transfer itself can be designed as part of an effort to improve financial inclusion, by providing about half of the country’s population, who are largely unbanked, with bank accounts. (Innovations such as this could be detailed in the implementing rules and regulations of the law, in order to further improve the development yield from this set of reforms.)

Targeted earmarks for human capital and pro-poor investments

Furthermore, all these citizens’ ability to adjust to the new tax regime will also depend critically on their ability to engage in the economy more successfully. Hence, investing part of TRAIN’s revenues in regions and sectors with large numbers of poor and low-income Filipinos can probably help improve on the structural “disconnectedness” of many Filipinos to the country’s growth drivers.

There is an interesting opportunity here as the Senate version also increased the pro-poor earmarks of the tax revenues, with a view to boosting human capital investments and improving pro-poor spending in education and health. These are some of the investments the country would have had to strengthen anyway, so using the revenues in this way could also indirectly help stabilize the country’s fiscal situation (read: prevent politicians from hijacking otherwise non-earmarked revenues and channeling them towards popular but unsustainable spending).

Based on our calculations, the House version of the tax package would have exacerbated inequality as measured by the Gini index, a common measure of income inequality. Applying the measures proposed by HB 5636 to households included in the 2015 Family Income and Expenditure Survey, we found that a pre-tax income Gini of 49.1 worsened to a post-tax Gini of 50.7. Even complete delivery of transfers would not improve upon this dramatically, driving the Gini down to only about 50.

By comparison, the Senate version reduces inequality much further than HB 5636, by bringing the Gini down to about 49.3 – thanks largely to adjustments in personal income tax schedules, much higher per household transfers, and a longer and fixed transfer period.

There is even good reason to believe that the Senate version of the tax package will be able to produce a post-tax reform Gini that will be even better (read: less inequality) compared to the pre-tax reform situation, once its more extensive pro-poor earmarks are fully worked out.

Compared to HB 5636, which allocated only 40% of incremental revenues of the oil excise tax (a projected P29.8 billion for 2018) to a “social benefits program” which includes the cash transfer, SB 1952 temporarily earmarks all incremental revenues to an even more expansive range of social benefits and investments for poor and near-poor households.

Strong targeting toward sectors (e.g., coconut and fisheries) and regions (e.g., parts of the Visayas and Mindanao) with large numbers of poor and low-income Filipinos could augment the transfers and directly address deep-seated factors behind inequality and poverty in the country.

Balancing efficiency and equity

While not necessarily ideal from the point of view of flexible public finance policy, pragmatic earmarking could nevertheless represent a middle ground to help boost revenues while also addressing inequality. Given still considerable underspending by government[1] and the still large fiscal headroom provided by development assistance and some borrowing, the argument that the government’s infrastructure program will be severely lacking in funds – if the tax package is not passed (or if it is passed and much of it temporarily earmarked) – appears to be less compelling.  

A middle ground position here would probably involve earmarking toward social (read: pro-poor) spending during a fixed and temporary period, after which the revenues could then revert back to the general fund of the Philippine government.

By channeling those resources toward sectors and regions with many economically disconnected poor and low-income Filipinos, the tax reform could help address inclusive growth in ways that past public finance reforms may have been less able to address. – Rappler.com

*The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Ateneo de Manila University. This article draws on a draft working paper prepared by the Ateneo Policy Center.  +AMDG