In the recent ASEAN Business and Investment Summit, “ports king” and third-richest Filipino Enrique Razon Jr made a bold and controversial claim:

“Countries with the most advanced infrastructure are the ones that are not democratic. The countries with the best infrastructure in the world are dictatorships…This is a fact.”

He added, “Tying democracy to development, I don’t think it really works.” This was met by laughter and applause from the audience.

Mr Razon’s statements touch on deep issues that have been the subject of many studies in economics and political science over the years.

In this article we use data and previous studies to show that Mr Razon’s claims about the economic effects of democracy are simplistic, inaccurate, and insensitive. In fact, they may even be considered a dangerous act of historical revisionism.

Infrastructure and democracy

Do non-democracies really have more and better infrastructure?

After all, without the usual checks and balances found in democratic regimes, authoritarian leaders could simply decree the construction of modern and ambitious infrastructure projects – in much the same way as President Marcos did in the 1970s.

The box plot in Figure 1 shows the range of infrastructure quality across different types of political regimes as of 2016.

Figure 1. Note: Data include 136 countries. The white line in each box signifies the median value; the bottom and top edges of each box refer to the 1^st and 3^rd quartiles; the bottom and top lines refer to the minimum and maximum values; a dot represents an outlier (the sole outlier here is Hong Kong).

The data on infrastructure scores come from the Global Competitiveness Report 2016-2017. Each country’s score aggregates the quality of its roads, railroads, ports, air transport, electricity supply, etc.

Meanwhile, the data on political regimes come from the Economist Intelligence Unit’s Democracy Index 2016. Each country is scored from 0 to 10 based on a number of criteria – including its electoral process and pluralism, degree of political participation, democratic political culture, and respect for civil liberties – and is then classified as follows:

What does Figure 1 show? First, the white line in each box indicates that the median infrastructure quality scores in democracies (whether full or flawed) are higher than in hybrid and authoritarian regimes.

Second, while infrastructure quality varies widely in authoritarian regimes – ranging from very high to very low – it tends to be consistently very high in full democracies.

This reflects the fact that while some authoritarian regimes have state-of-the-art infrastructure (like the driverless trains in Dubai in the UAE or the spanking new cities of China) some also have poor or non-existent infrastructure (like the unpaved runways of Burundi or the dilapidated road network of the Congo).

In authoritarian regimes, infrastructure projects are subject to large commissions, bribes, and kickbacks, and this often compromises their quantity and quality.

During the Marcos regime, for example, Herminio Disini – an Ilocano businessman and husband to Imelda’s first cousin – received at least $50 million in commissions from the contractor (Westinghouse) for helping seal the deal on the Bataan Nuclear Power Plant. Records show that, from 1976 to 1982, Marcos himself received $11.2 million from the project, which produced not a single kilowatt of energy to this day.

Note that Figure 1 excludes major authoritarian states – like North Korea, Syria, and the Central African Republic – from which infrastructure data are simply non-existent or impossible to collect. If you include them, the median infrastructure score in authoritarian regimes will likely go down further.

Hence, when it comes to infrastructure, being in an authoritarian regime is a mixed bag. Mr Razon’s statement gives too much credit to authoritarian regimes and grossly ignores their bad track record in providing quality infrastructure especially in the poorest parts of the world.

Development and democracy

But the greater issue here is whether democracy – with its insistence on transparency and accountability – could actually be a constraint to overall economic growth and development. Some non-democracies like China and Viet Nam, for example, have had great successes in reducing poverty and increasing their people’s incomes in recent decades.

It so happens that economists and political scientists have long studied the same question. One of the latest studies of note – a 2015 paper by economists from MIT, Harvard, and Columbia – is simply entitled, “Democracy does cause growth.”

By exploring global data on “democratizations” – transitions from non-democratic to democratic regimes – from 1960 to 2010, they found that such events increase income per capita by 20% on average 25 years later.

This holds true even if one accounts for other potential factors, such as the fall of communism in the late 1980s, the political unrest that typically precedes democratizations, and the inflows of foreign aid that follow it.

The researchers further investigated the specific mechanisms by which democracy causes growth. They found that democratization tends to encourage private sector investments, increase spending on education and health, improve the provision of public goods, and reduce social unrest.

All in all, the authors found “little support for the view that democracy is a constraint on economic growth for less developed countries.” Democracy and development are not only correlated with one another: the former actually causes the latter.

Let’s not sugarcoat dictatorship

The election of President Duterte, alongside other populist leaders abroad, seems to be part of a growing frustration with liberal democracy worldwide.

Indeed, the way many Filipinos are acquiescing to the Duterte government’s questionable policies – like the trampling on basic human rights, the intimidation of media outlets, and the attempt to impeach Chief Justice Sereno – we might already be descending back into some sort of hybrid or authoritarian regime.

But contrary to what some businessmen might claim, democracy is not a constraint to development. In fact, the data show that transitioning to a democracy is associated with long-term improvements in people’s welfare.

We should know this from experience. Our great experiment with authoritarianism during the Marcos regime culminated in the country’s deepest postwar recession in 1984 to 1985. The democratization that EDSA marked put us back on the right track. (READ: Were it not for Marcos, Filipinos today would have been richer)

Sugarcoating dictatorship with its supposed economic benefits is therefore a dangerous act of historical revisionism, especially now that President Duterte is seriously flirting with the idea of starting a “RevGov” or revolutionary government.

Such remarks betray not only one’s ignorance of the existing data, but also a lack of appreciation for the country’s history. At worst, it displays an aloofness to the plight of the ordinary Filipino. – Rappler.com

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

MANILA, Philippines — The favorite pejorative against media is “biased.” History teacher Leloy Claudio argues, however, that media neutrality is a myth and news outlets are better off being transparent and honest. (READ: [OPINION] End media neutrality)

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 Filipinos' obsession with titles

When we reach the age of 50 – that’s half a century old – we tend to ask ourselves profound meaning-of-life questions. So should organizations like ASEAN.

As it marks its 50^th year, it needs to reflect on an existential question: can ASEAN ever have a united voice on South China Sea and achieve peace in these contested waters? 

For, through the years, ASEAN has not been effective on the South China Sea issue on two counts:

• First, the consensus rule in ASEAN and the powerful clout of China have made it painfully difficult for these parties to arrive at a legally binding Code of Conduct on the South China Sea. 
• Second, the ASEAN-China Declaration of Conduct on the South China Sea of 2002 is famous for being breached rather than observed. 

1990s

Since the 1990s, a pragmatic ASEAN has chosen to engage China in talks as some member countries have competing claims with this powerful country over parts of the South China Sea.

I liken this engagement with China as ASEAN’s dance with the elephant. It’s a slow drag and it gets straining at times and repetitious, too. There may be high points, when they sway to the same tune, but there are also low points, when the elephant’s paws step on ASEAN’s toes because they are dancing to different beats.

In 1992, Beijing hardened its expansive claims on the South China Sea. It passed a law explicitly asserting its sovereignty over the Spratly Islands. 

ASEAN regarded this as a warning sign that China seemed set on a collision course with other claimant countries. Manila thus took the lead in urging its co-members in ASEAN to call for restraint and find a peaceful resolution to the disputes.  

In the same year, the ASEAN Declaration on the South China Sea was crafted in a foreign ministers’ meeting in Manila. It was their first statement of concern on the disputed area and was signed by the 5 original members – Indonesia, Philippines, Thailand, Malaysia, and Singapore – and the newcomer Brunei. They highlighted the need to settle issues without the use of force. This document was referred to as the Manila Declaration.

To cap the declaration, the ASEAN ministers proposed a “code of international conduct over the South China Sea.” This may have been the first time such a code was mentioned. 

China endorsed the Declaration’s principles.

Mischief Reef

But something happened that shocked the Philippines and the rest of ASEAN.

The Chinese quietly occupied Mischief Reef (Panganiban Reef), which lies within the Philippines’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ). In late 1994, they began setting up structures and flew the flag of the People’s Republic of China. It was a full-fledged presence, with many vessels anchored and about 1,000 uniformed men in the area.

As China was beefing up its presence in Mischief Reef, Filipino diplomats kept up the pressure on their counterparts. 

Official communications between Manila and Beijing on this source of friction were all documented. These historical records were annexed to the Philippine memorial submitted to The Hague – made public for the first time in 2013 when the government filed its case versus China.

The Philippines was confronting a rising power whose economy was growing fast. China’s newfound wealth gave the Asian giant the luxury to look beyond its borders and strategize its role overseas.

China’s action on Mischief Reef also showed that power abhorred a vacuum. When the Philippines drove away the American military bases in 1992, China saw an opportunity to slide its way in.

The Philippines ran to ASEAN for help in 1995. The ASEAN foreign ministers issued a statement expressing “serious concern” and urged all parties to “refrain from taking actions that destabilize the region.” 

2002 Declaration

Fast forward to 2002: the Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, or DOC for short, was drafted in 2002 as a modus vivendi between China and ASEAN to placate tensions.

The 3-page DOC, which was a product of tedious negotiations for about two years, called for resolving territorial disputes by peaceful means and continued dialogues and “regular consultations on the observance of this Declaration.”

Overall, it was a confidence-building measure. But it wasn’t what the parties really aimed for. 

While ASEAN and China were inching their way to the real thing, a Code of Conduct or COC, they decided to come up with the DOC, a sort of mid-way point to show sign of progress. 

Thus the DOC was simply a stopgap measure, a document that would serve as a bridge to the goal of coming up with a COC that would bind countries to specific commitments in being made accountable for violations each one commits.

This Code had been on the agenda of ASEAN and China for, on and off, more than 20 years, but with no final agreement yet in sight.

As events unfolded, China took the view that the DOC was not a matter between China and the ASEAN as a whole but remained a bilateral issue. This was in contrast with the view of ASEAN. Therein lay a major incompatibility.

Phnom Penh and Kunming

Ten years after the Declaration, something happened that went against the tenets of the DOC.

In 2012, China took control of Scarborough Shoal. The balance of power was as clear as day. 

The ASEAN foreign ministers’ meeting that followed in Phnom Penh turned out to be historic. For the first time in 45 years, ASEAN did not issue its customary joint communiqué. It was the most unexpected thing to have happened in the predictable history of ASEAN. 

Cambodia, then the ASEAN chairman, refused to include any mention of the Scarborough Shoal incident in the concluding statement – even if the shoal wasn’t named. Consensus, which was the norm in ASEAN, couldn’t be reached. 

This incident scarred ASEAN, posing a challenge to the group’s unity in the wake of China’s tightening clout.

A similar incident happened in the Chinese city of Kunming in 2016 during the meeting of foreign ministers of China and ASEAN. The Malaysian foreign ministry released a strongly-worded statement by the ASEAN – that did not name China directly – but warned against undermining peace in the South China Sea. At the time, China had been building artificial islands and increasing its military presence.

But the statement was recalled. This was an unprecedented U-turn. The press called it the case of the vanishing ASEAN statement.

China, reports said, put pressure on its two allies, Cambodia and Laos, to block the statement. 

One-page draft ‘framework’

Today, where is ASEAN in terms of reaching a legally binding Code of Conduct?

In early 2017, the most that ASEAN and China reached was a one-page draft “framework of a COC” which did not stray from the 2002 Declaration. If you read it, it sounds pretty much like the DOC, with a bit more detail.

The aimed-for COC, the draft says, should be able to establish rules to “manage incidents” and create a positive environment for peaceful settlement of disputes – through hotlines and measures to build trust. These should be monitored via mechanisms still to be agreed upon.

The prospects for a COC do not seem bright. This remains a huge test for ASEAN. Which brings me back to the existential question: will ASEAN ever be effective in speaking up with a united voice on the South China Sea and ultimately bring peace to the disputed waters?

This question hangs like a fog over ASEAN. Only the association, through a reboot of its ways, can lift this fog. – Rappler.com 

Marites Dañguilan Vitug, editor at large of Rappler, is currently a visiting scholar at the National Graduate Institute of Policy Studies (GRIPS) in Tokyo. These are excerpts from her talk in the keynote panel of the seminar “ Visions of Regionalism, Realities of Regionalization” held in GRIPS on Wednesday, November 22. 

On Wednesday, November 22, the House committee on justice, chaired by Representative Reynaldo Umali, conducted its first hearing on the impeachment of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno.

After preliminary considerations, the justice committee then proceeded to resolve some pending incidents such as whether or not non-members could participate in the committee hearing to which the said committee, upon the motion of Representative Gwen Garcia, ruled in the negative. It also ruled in the negative on the issue of the right of Sereno’s lawyers to cross-examine the witnesses against her. The lawyers, led by Alex Poblador, had no choice but to excuse themselves. With such blatant disregard of constitutional rights, what choice did they have?

It only got worse. As the hearing progressed, it became clear that the complainant Larry Gadon had committed perjury, that in fact, the House justice committee should not have approved this complaint as being sufficient in form.

The Gadon complaint consists of allegations of culpable violation of the Constitution, betrayal of public trust, corruption and other high crimes, grounds cognizable by the Constitution for impeachment. He listed numerous acts supposedly committed by the Chief Justice that would support his allegations.

I have already written that, even if proven, those acts are clearly not impeachable. Culpable violation of the Constitution means a specific constitutional provision was intentionally transgressed upon by the impeachable official. Betrayal of public trust, even if it has a broader scope, implies a seriousness that rises to the level of high crimes and misdemeanors that are also grounds for impeachment. Mistakes of judgments, especially on administrative matters and management decisions, do not rise to being impeachable.

Such grounds must be read in conjunction with the element of deliberate, malicious, and evil intent. They are not magic words that can be invoked at the drop of a hat to make a public official, irritating he or she might be to some, disappear. In other words, there must be prima facie evidence showing that the act – to be considered betrayal of trust or culpably violative of the Constitution – is done with deliberate or malicious intent.

As the hearing progressed yesterday, it became clear that Gadon clearly is wrong also about the facts, definitely committing perjury as he obviously did not  have personal knowledge of the acts supposedly attributed to the respondent, something he attested to when he filed the complaint. This was repeatedly pointed out by some members of the committee when it was disclosed by Gadon himself that he acquired his information from other people. This is hearsay evidence and therefore inadmissible.

This, despite Gadon’s statement in the verification, that he has personal knowledge of the acts complained of. But then again how could Atty Gadon substantiate his allegations if he has no personal knowledge of the supposed illegal and impeachable acts by the respondent; when other people could better testify on the matters raised and not the complainant himself who, as already said, has no personal knowledge of his very own allegations?

One committee member aptly observed that Gadon should not be the complainant in this case but some other personality who can better testify on the allegations.

For instance, in the alleged falsification of Supreme Court resolutions and a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO) by Sereno – Gadon, when asked whether he could personally substantiate his claim, could only mumble the names of other persons such as Associate Justice Teresita de Castro or newspaper reporter Jomar Canlas who supposedly talked to her.

At one juncture, when pressed for the names of his sources, the complainant said that he could no longer remember their names, while he charges the respondent with tampering and or falsification. Gadon curiously failed to present documentary evidence to prove the allegation, such as the copies of the resolutions and decision allegedly falsified. This prompted the committee chair to require the complainant to submit a list of his sources and/or documents that may be subpoenaed.

Again some allegations, such as the supposed purchase of a Toyota Land Cruiser, are matters pending before the Supreme Court, which are internal to the Court and therefore beyond the jurisdiction of the committee. Matters internal to the Court must be resolved by the Court itself and not by the House pursuant to the principle of co-equality.

As defined in case law, probable cause is the existence of such facts and circumstances as would excite the belief in a reasonable mind, acting on the facts within the knowledge of the prosecutor, that the person charged was guilty of the crime for which he was prosecuted. Probable cause is a reasonable ground of presumption that a matter is, or may be, well founded on such a state of facts in the mind of the prosecutor as would lead a person of ordinary caution and prudence to believe, or entertain an honest or strong suspicion, that a thing is so. The presence or absence of probable cause to impeach the Chief Justice is what the committee is set to establish bearing in mind the yardstick set by case law.

While it would be difficult at this juncture to make a reasonable prediction as to what would be the verdict of the committee since based on my understanding a few more hearings will be conducted before the committee can come up with a resolution, the complainant’s performance during the said hearing falls woefully short in substantiating his allegations, such that if a decision were to be reached on that single hearing, the committee should dismiss the complaint for lack of probable cause. But then again, we will see in the next hearings whether the complainant can “improve” his performance by presenting more cogent proof, documentary or otherwise, to support his claims.  

Ideally, the determination by the House committee of probable cause at this stage is a constitutional duty and should not be tainted by partisanship or partiality. The resolution must hinge solely on the evidence presented by the parties and never be dictated upon by partisan politics. The proper and regular performance by the House of this duty is a sacred constitutional obligation that will determine the fate not only of the impeachable official subject of the impeachment complaint, but also of the integrity of the democratic traditions of this country.

Unfortunately, the committee on justice is clearly failing in that obligation. Its denial of Sereno's right to confront witnesses and right to counsel is so brazen that it can be a ground for dismissal when the impeachment complaint goes to the Senate. In my view, as the proceedings in the committee continue, those grounds will accumulate.

The truth is that the House of Representatives can decide to forego any process and can just send this to the Senate for trial. If that is the intention, it might be best to do that. But if the intent is to continue an unfair process in the House to embarrass the Chief Justice, such a strategy would clearly backfire.

In my view, there is no chance that impeachment will prosper in the Senate. All the senators will act independently and with wisdom and fairness here, and because of that, I am confident Sereno will not only get the minimum votes so the two-third’s majority for conviction is not reached, but in fact, will get  a majority of senators to vote for her acquittal. But to bring the impeachment to the Senate for trial, where there is no basis for the charges, is going to be an abuse of power. Hopefully, the chair and members of the committee on justice and the House of Representatives as a body will see that and end this process quickly.

The chief complainant has showed his contempt for the House of Representatives and the country by filing a perjurious complaint. There is time still for our representatives to do the right thing. Otherwise, as Gadon crumbles, the House falls. – Rappler.com

Tony La Viña is former dean of the Ateneo School of Government. 

Ako'y namimilipit
Ihi parang sisirit
Boss laging kinukulit
Bonus lagi kong hirit

Ako ay tuwang-tuwa
Sa wakas narito na
'di na manglimos awa
Bulsa ko ay handa na

– Rappler.com

Artwork by Alejandro Edoria
Text by Stacy de Jesus

#FridayFeels is a cartoon series by the Rappler Creatives Team. Cathartic, light, but relevant, it's a welcome break from your heavy news feed! You can pitch illustration ideas by sending a message to the Rappler Facebook page. 

The just ended Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) Summit is being trumpeted as a Philippine achievement, like some high goal one set for oneself, and reached. It was not; it was no more than a rotated task that merely fell to the Duterte government, and one that it somehow managed to not mess up.

It was in fact more like a social meeting than like anything serious, long on niceties and platitudes, short on commitments. In fact, it was memorable for its defaults, of which the most significant was another missed chance for Southeast Asian nations like the Philippines to improve their position — by moving it closer to something fair — in dealing with powers like China.

Indeed, if any summiteer came away truly happy, it must be China. For one thing, it once again escaped being buttonholed for bullying its rival claimants to land and waters in the South China Sea; it only had to say it agreed to start talks on a code of conduct for all claimants. No date, not even a provisional one, was set. A date would have held China to something.

With China, there's an entire sea of difference between saying and agreeing. All this time it has been successful in avoiding such talks; it has been successful, too, in building structures, including military ones, in the disputed territory and in keeping rival claimants off. Even Filipino fishermen who have plied those waters all their lives for modest livelihood are banned, the desperately persistent among them chased away by the Chinese navy.

It was exactly for such intransigence and intimidation that the government of Benigno Aquino III had gone for international arbitration, which produced a ruling upholding the Philippine claim. Themselves anxious about China's arbitrariness and covetousness, other claimants could only have been encouraged by the arbitral ruling. Surely concerned, too, are nations using the disputed waters as an international passageway.

Alas, not even a ruling reached in a process it had itself agreed to, signed up for, could make China back down. And, with Rodrigo Duterte as Philippine president, it could not have felt more confident in its strong-arm strategy.

Duterte began brave and ended up treasonous. With a touch of theater known to work in electoral campaigns, he promised to jet-ski on the South China Sea and plant his country's flag in the newly legitimized Philippine territory. But, once elected and reminded, he said it was all a joke. Actually, it was worse than a joke; nobody makes jokes about national sovereignty and lives — although Duterte manages.

He did not even wait for his arm to be twisted before surrendering to the Chinese, effectively, the Philippines' rights to the territory. It's foolish to provoke a military power like China, he said, and proceeded to kowtow to, and be patronized by, it. He went to China and fancied himself an equal in a triumvirate with its president, Xi Jinping, and Russia’s Vladimir Putin. It was, of course, a joke — on himself — and it perfectly suited China, such that jocularity now defines its opportunistic relationship with the Philippines.

An early inkling of the character of the relationship was given by the Chinese ambassador to the Philippines when he told Duterte — on nationwide television! — what, say, a member of his Cabinet might only tell him in private: declare an emergency — a state of affairs only normal in one-party-ruled China. Played well by China according to his narcissistic predisposition, Duterte has stuck with China even more crazily.

The relationship has steadily proceeded that way, and the Manila summit provided the most recent stage. Beneath the toasting and dining, behind the song and dance, deals began to be cooked. From post-summit pronouncements by Duterte and his spokesmen, it's easy to see who's getting cooked. China is emerging as a most favored Philippine contractor and creditor, despite its well-known disadvantageous terms: apart from charging much higher rates than other lenders, China is known to insist on supplying logistics — men, machines, and materials — for projects funded by its loans. Shadowy subcontractors are another problem.

A particularly worrisome case has to do with the prospect of a Chinese player competing with the local duopoly in Philippine telecommunications — Globe and PLDT. Mentioned in the same breath, China and telecommunications recall a horror from the not too distant past: NBN-ZTE. Those initials have come to refer to a corruption scandal involving a Chinese company (ZTE) contracted in 2007 by Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's government to build the infrastructure for the National Broadband Network (NBN). Herself implicated in the scandal, Arroyo killed the deal six months later to preempt a Supreme Court ruling on the case. Now a chief political ally of Duterte's, in fact deputy speaker of the House, Arroyo occupied a curiously exalted seat at the summit, inspiring further dread of Chinese telecommunications people coming.

For its own share of benefits as a triumvir, Russia is being tapped for the commissioning of the Philippine nuclear power plant. The plant was built during Ferdinand Marcos's dictatorship on foreign loans that ballooned to accommodate kickbacks. It was mothballed by Marcos’s democratic successor, Corazon Aquino, in 1986, after the nuclear disaster in Chernobyl, in the Ukraine, a satellite of Soviet Russia at the time.

Which makes Philippine-Russian partnership another horror story altogether.– Rappler.com

After several months of hard work in unilateral and bilateral meetings, the GRP and NDFP negotiating panels were ready to do a little polishing of common drafts on November 22 and 23 in Utrecht, The Netherlands, for finalization in the slated fifth round of formal talks in Oslo on November 25 to 27, 2017.

The common drafts were those pertaining to:  

1. the general amnesty and release of all political prisoners in compliance with the Comprehensive Agreement on Respect for Human Rights and International Humanitarian Law (CARHRIHL)
2. the coordinated unilateral ceasefires (CUC) as the  advance from a stand down type of ceasefire from the fifth to the sixth round of formal  talks in January 2018
3. Part I Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (ARRD) and Part II National Industrialization and Economic Development (NIED) of the Comprehensive Agreement on Social and Economic Reforms (CASER)

The GRP AND NDFP Negotiating Panels were so happy and confident that they would be able to initial the CASER and the agreements on the general amnesty and release of all political prisoners and the coordinated unilateral ceasefires at the closing session of the fifth round of formal talks and formally sign all of these  at the closing ceremony of the sixth round in January 2018.

It was also expected that the negotiations on the Comprehensive Agreement on Political and Constitutional Reforms (CAPCR) would begin in the sixth round and be completed anytime between March and May of 2018 on time for possible revisions of the 1987 Constitution of GRP.

Unfortunately, Duterte, the principal of the GRP Negotiating Panel, started on November 18 to rant every day  against the CPP, NPA, and the NDFP in connection with recent incidents in the armed conflict. He also ranted against the entire peace process until November 23 when he made his Proclamation No. 360 terminating the peace negotiation.

He violated the mutual agreement that talks would be discreet until there would be good news to announce at the end of the fifth or sixth round of formal talks.

In the course of his rants, Duterte unwittingly exposed his scarce, shallow and defective knowledge of the peace process such as the following:

1. He cited alleged recent incidents in the armed conflict which he used as false basis for  slandering the revolutionary forces and threatening the termination of the peace negotiations and the outlawing of the revolutionary forces and legal democratic forces as terrorists. In the absence of ceasefire between the GRP and NDFP, he, through his negotiating panel, should have submitted his complaints to the Joint Monitoring Committee (JMC) under CARHRIHL.

The NDFP has always submitted to the JMC its complaints of HR and IHL violations committed by the AFP and PNP under the ceaseless all-out war policy,  Oplan Kapayapaan and martial law in Mindanao. These violations are far worse in scale and severity than those alleged by Duterte against the NPA. And yet NDFP never threatened to terminate the peace negotiations.

2. Duterte spouted lies like the NDFP ignored the GRP proposal for a stand down agreement prior to the adoption and implementation of the coordinated unilateral ceasefire. Showing gross ignorance of the peace process, he even referred to The Netherlands as the facilitator rather than the Royal Norwegian Government.

There are symptoms that Duterte is mentally unfit to handle the complexities of the affairs of his state and the peace process between the GRP and NDFP.  GRP officials in his Cabinet and the reactionary armed forces should consider whether he is mentally fit for his office or needs to be replaced in accordance with their 1987 Constitution.

Among his lucid statements in the course of his rants are those pertaining to his voluntary admission as a fascist in the service of the US (Amboy), his overwhelming desire for killing and war and  his advice to the NDFP to negotiate with his successor in due time. – Rappler.com

Jose Maria Sison is the founder of the Communist Party of the Philippines, and the chief political consultant of the National Democratic Front. He was a former professor of President Rodrigo Duterte at Lyceum University.

In recent weeks, some have brandished the need for a revolutionary government (RevGov for short) as part of an effort to hasten deep reforms in the country. At the heart of the argument, the claim is that there are many forces – oligarchs, dynasties, and even flawed laws – that keep the country’s development shackled. There is evidence that actually supports part of this diagnosis. In general, lack of competition, in both the economy and in politics, weakens our governance and development prospects. As vested interests persist, the political economy of reforms becomes terribly difficult. As the saying goes “two steps forward, one step back.” But as we will show in this article, RevGov is not the cure for what ails our democracy.

Was there a “Cory RevGov”?

While it may seem that revolution and revolutionary government can be easily defined, there’s no standard universally accepted classification of cases of these two yet. In fact, there’s even as many variants of revolutionary government classifications as there are scholars who examine it. However, in this article we adopt the definition and identification scheme used by Jeff Colgan of Brown University. RevGov is defined as one that transforms the existing social, political and economic relationships of the state by overthrowing or rejecting the principal existing institutions.

Proponents of RevGov, including President Rodrigo Duterte himself, have proffered as justification the supposed “Revolutionary Government” of President Cory Aquino when she assumed power immediately after the 1986 People Power Revolution. Their logic is, if she could do it, so could President Duterte.

This line of reasoning is disingenuous, and misleading at best. First, the conditions that gave rise to President Cory Aquino’s assumption of power are clearly not present now. One of the “whereas clauses” of Proclamation No. 3 issued by her on March 25, 1986 plainly expresses the basis of her extraordinary move: 

“WHEREAS, the new government was installed through a direct exercise of the power of the Filipino people assisted by units of the New Armed Forces of the Philippines;”

The support of the people and the military, two elements that underpinned President Cory Aquino’s decision to abolish, albeit partially, the 1973 Constitution are without a doubt missing today. Therefore, this period of our political history cannot be used by this administration as a justifying precedent for their desire to establish a RevGov.

Second, the Cory administration did not actually brand itself as a RevGov as evidenced by Proclamation No. 3. Indeed, only its critics did. During the brief period where President Cory Aquino ruled the country with both legislative and executive power, it was under the auspices of the Freedom Constitution established in Proclamation No. 3. Hence, she did not possess limitless power as imagined by the current administration.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court has ruled in Lawyers League for a Better Philippines vs. President Corazon C. Aquino, that her government was in fact and in law a de jure government. More critically, that the community of nations had recognized the legitimacy of her government. Hence, to characterize it now as a RevGov is historically inaccurate.

It must be mentioned that less than a year after the issuance of Proclamation No. 3, the entire nation was already under the 1987 Constitution. Hence, for 30 years now, we have both enjoyed and endured life under a constitutional democracy. To be sure, reforms under the past administrations could have been much better. But make no mistake, brick by painful brick, the mess left behind by authoritarianism under Marcos was slowly being fixed. Indeed, it continues to be fixed by freedom-loving Filipinos and generations of reformists from the bureaucracy and from different political parties (such as they are).

Is RevGov really the answer?

The source of our national angst is real, notwithstanding reform victories in many areas, not the least of which include our still robustly growing economy and improving human capital investments in our young population. Yet challenges persist in many parts of the country. In Manila over half a million straphangers suffer the humiliation of riding a mass transit system that is not only mismanaged, but by now exposes riders to grave danger. About 7 million underemployed and another 3 million unemployed remain marginalized in the face of a fast-growing economy. Every year, an additional 1 million young workers join the labor force looking for decent jobs, yet our economy generates only a fraction of that. About 3 million farmers, and almost 2 million fisherfolk remain stuck in low-value-added agriculture and fisheries. And well over 90% of Philippine firms – the vast majority are small and medium scale enterprises – do not directly benefit from the benign credit environment which remains heavily biased towards much larger firms.

Persistent income and human development inequality threatens to further divide the nation, where it matters which island you are born in. Based on UNDP statistics, the level of human development in urban centers like Manila rival those of the best in ASEAN; but in places like Maguindanao and Tawi-tawi, they match the likes of Afghanistan and Zimbabwe.

Clearly, much can still be done, and the work ahead is considerable. The proponents of RevGov are essentially tapping on this national angst, potentially fueling an under-appreciation of reform gains and an over-emphasis of reform blockages. Their weakness lies in a very simplistic theory of change – that concentrating power in the hands of a few would give them the means to execute the key reforms necessary to move the country forward.

This argument is flawed in many ways. And unfortunately, the equally flawed recollection of our recent history feeds into this. Indeed, “revolutionary government” is a red herring. The real question we should be asking is whether authoritarian rule trumps incremental democratic institutional reforms.

Weaker economies and more instability under RevGov

Cory’s government hastened to transition the Philippines back to democracy and away from the authoritarian rule of President Marcos. As mentioned earlier, the drafting of a new constitution was quickly put in the works when she took over, and this was democratically ratified by the people within less than a year.

Yet, RevGovs in general are slow to transition back to democratic institutions. In fact, protracted revolutionary governments are often accompanied by high uncertainty and risks of abuse. This uncertainty and potential instability, in turn, could likely impede the country’s current economic momentum.

Historical data of 68 identified revolutionary governments in the past 50 years show stark economic development patterns before, during and after each revolutionary period. Average GDP growth is weaker during revolutionary phase—and the country only recovers once it abandons the revolutionary phase or returns to democratic rule. The average length of RevGovs in this sample is 11 years; and it is likely due to the authoritarian risks that all RevGovs inherently carry.

Source: Ateneo Policy Staff calculation from the revolutionary government dataset of Colgan (2012) 

Several scholars have also previously emphasized how different variants of political upheavals, emphasizing revolution as one trigger, lead to mass violence. Nam Kyu Kim of Sung Kyun Kwan University in South Korea found empirical evidence showing that revolutionary leaders are more than 4 times as likely to initiate mass killings as non-revolutionary leaders. The violent behaviors of the revolutionary leaders also do not entirely depend on the political instability brought by the revolution but are also attributable to the leader’s traits and ideologies. Exclusionary ideologies such as those that justify efforts to persecute and eliminate certain groups play an essential role in explaining the leader’s likelihood to commit mass murder against unarmed citizens.

Hence, RevGov in the hands of people who are already predisposed to violence, or forms of populism that divide rather than unite countries, are much more likely to be destructive.

Alternative theory of change

The country needs many reforms; and we will need a new narrative for moving the country forward. Ambisyon Natin 2040, the country’s long term development vision, actually puts forward a strategy underpinned by institutions and governance. Its main theory of change remains loyal to democratic institutional reforms, given our long history and worldwide empirical evidence supporting this approach.

In the final analysis, RevGov offers an old narrative that our country already tried – and we paid dearly for over 20 years of authoritarian rule under Marcos that left our economy in shambles. It took almost just as long for some of our main institutions to recover from the damage wrought by authoritarian rule. RevGov actually brings us back to the past. With a very young and vibrant population, why even contemplate going back there? – Rappler.com

Ron Mendoza is Dean and Associate Professor of Economics at the Ateneo School of Government, Michael Yusingco is a lawyer and Non-Resident Research Fellow, and Miann Banaag is a statistician with the Ateneo Policy Center. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Ateneo de Manila University.

A symbol of the times confronts LRT riders who look right as they pass by Vito Cruz station: a black banner with the words “Stop the Killings. Start the Healing” hung on the Corinthian columns of architect Tomas Mapua’s St La Salle Hall.

The sign is near but distant. De La Salle University pushes into the daily life of Manila City, its students and staff only needing to take a few steps to smell the jeepney fumes of Taft Avenue. But while those with DLSU IDs go in and out of the university and the “real world” as they please, most of the LRT riders will never see the inside of Mapua’s masterpiece.

I still gaze at the banner sometimes; it makes me proud to be a DLSU employee. But I also know that it is symbol not just of our moral heft as a university, but also our isolation. Many of the LRT riders are surely pro-Duterte, and, while the banner is black, many of them only see yellow. The academic experts behind the gates are physically and intellectually isolated, pointy-heads in a neoclassical portico who have never had their lives threatened by an adik.

We live in an age of populism. And populist politics, contrary to facile interpretations, is not about politicians doing popular things. Rather, it is a view that separates the world into suffering ordinary people and elites who neglect their suffering. Populism surges when experts fail us, leading people to seek alternative sources of knowledge and authority. People believe fake news, not only because they are gullible, but also because they are critical of mainstream news.

What happens to experts in times of great disillusionment?

I am a professionally trained historian, so I have a vested interest in saving the reputation of experts. I do not deny that I resent people who believe conspiracy theory-oriented blogs about the Marcos golden era over peer-reviewed articles that prove Apo was a crook. I also dismiss as fantasy the belief that piling bodies solves the deep-seated roots of narco politics. These views may have traction in online spaces, but I insist that we not confuse virality with quality. Pace Sass Sasot, thank god the BBC doesn’t pick its interviewees based on their social media following.

Many times, experts are experts, because they’ve put in the work. We trust doctors to heal, journalists to tell the news, pilots to fly planes, etc. And we trust institutions, like universities, that train these experts. This circle of trust often holds, but it can break down when the experts take for granted the perpetual probity of their beliefs. In these cases, intellectual insurgencies are necessary. And, indeed, it does help that there are now numerous sources of information that allow us to challenge them.

My own experience of such an insurgency has been, oddly, in the area of diet. For most of my teens and twenties, I took for granted that reducing fat intake results in better health. The experts, from the US government to your statin-peddling cardiologist, tell you that eating a lot of saturated fat “clogs” your arteries and leads to heart disease – a view of the human body that reduces its complexity to that of your kitchen sink.

Almost 5 years ago, I started hearing about paleo and ketogenic diets on health and fitness podcasts. These diets are like mainstream health recommendations in that they advocate whole food diets. But they reverse conventional knowledge by advocating eating more polyunsaturated and saturated fat, while avoiding eating refined sugars and grains.

Since discovering low carb/high fat eating, the staples of my diet have been sticks of butter, rib eye steaks, various incarnations of the pork belly (bacon and chicharon), avocados, and leafy greens. And I am the healthiest I’ve ever been: my blood sugar and triglycerides are low and my HDL (good) cholesterol is high. Most of my aches and pains from my late twenties are gone, and my kind wife says I have abs (she lies?).

My hatred for the anti-fat experts peaked when my diabetic mother, a physician, was confined after palpitations and high blood pressure two years ago. After stabilizing her blood pressure, the doctors refused to release her until her blood sugar had dropped to a relatively normal level.

The problem was that the low fat, “diabetic” food the hospital was feeding her had white bread, rice, and a milk supplement with high fructose corn syrup (the crap they mix into soft drinks). After two days, there were no significant improvements in her blood sugar. Incensed, my brothers and I bought her sticks of barbeque and some chicharon, and we threw away the expert-sanctioned food. As we predicted, not only did she enjoy herself, her blood sugar also dropped, and she was out of confinement in 24 hours.

Because of the high fat diet insurgency, many experts have come to re-evaluate their positions. And mainstream institutions from academic journals, media outlets like the New York Times, and reputable universities like Duke University have discussed the benefits of ketogenic diets. Like populist publics, therefore, I know what it's like to suspect that professionals have pulled a fast one on you. And I thank the netherworlds of the internet for helping me.  

So what am I saying? Trust experts when they tell you that Marcos was a crook and that killing users does not solve a drug problem, but don’t trust them when they tell you to avoid bacon? To some extent, yes. But what I’m really saying is that there are never any fixed answers. Many times the experts are right, but they can also be very, very wrong.

Alas, the world is confusing. All we can do is do our best to educate ourselves, keep our own biases in check, and maintain open minds. It would also help if our conceptions of truth were based not simply on what we want to believe, but what we can, to the best of our capacities, verify through research. For in an age of populism, as with any age, people cannot afford to export their minds. – Rappler.com

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

Ano ang kabayanihan? At sino ba ang mga bayani? 

May pakahulugan sa Ingles na mainam nating tandaan: ang mga bayani ay pangkaraniwang taong nangahas gumawa ng ’di pangkaraniwang bagay.

Nariyan ang mga bayani sa oras ng panganib, ang mga sundalo at pulis na lumaban sa Marawi at ang 44 Special Action Force na nagbuwis ng buhay sa operasyon sa Mamasapano.

Tinatawag din nating bayani ang mga atletang dumaan sa matinding pagsasanay at nag-uwi ng karangalan sa bansa tulad ng mga lumahok sa SEA Games.

Andiyan din ang “unsung heroes,” ang overseas Filipino workers. Tinatatawag silang “bagong bayani” dahil ang remittances nila ang pangunahing nagpapalutang sa ekonomiya. Padala ng OFW ang bumuo ng 9.8% ng GDP ng bansa noon 2016.

At huwag nating kalilimutan ang ating mga guro, isa sa pinakamababa ang suweldo sa mga lingkod-bayan. Hinubog nila ang ating talino pati ating values – ’yung itinuturing nating makabuluhan sa buhay.

Andiyan ang mga kawani ng gobyerno na nananatiling matiyaga at ’di nababahiran sa kabila ng kaliwa’t kanang korapsyon. Sa kabila ng mababang sahod at usad-pagong na promosyon, isinasapuso nila ang pagsisilbi sa bayan. 

Saludo kami sa mga lumalaban sa lahat ng anyo, pasimple man or garapal, ng violence against women (VAW).

Pinararangalan namin ang mga kumakalinga sa mga binusabos at inapi, tulad ng mga biktima ng incest, human trafficking, at ng mga inabusong OFW.

Pero may ibang uri ng kabayanihan at paglilingkod sa bayan na sumulpot sa bagong hamon ng panahon.

Ngayong katotohanan ang madalas na tinatamaan at nalalaglag, maituturing na bayani ang mga truth tellers – silang hindi tumitiklop, silang hindi natitinag sa paninindigan para sa tama at katotohanan. 

Ipinaglalaban nila ang dati’y dinadakila ng lipunang Pilipino nguni’t ngayon ay tila bagsak-presyo: pagpapahalaga sa karapatang pantao, kalayaang magsalita, at malayang pamamahayag.

Nariyan ang summa cum laude mula sa Marawi na naninindigan para sa kapayapaan. 

Ang iskolar ng bayan na nanindigan laban sa extra-judicial killings o EJK. 

Ang mga high school student ng St Scholasitica's College na bumatikos sa paglilibing kay Ferdinand Marcos sa Libingan ng mga Bayani.

Ang alumni ng paaralan na sumuporta sa mga kabataan nitong nagpoprotesta at handang labanan sa korte ang cyber-bullies.

Bayani ang lahat ng lumalaban sa tinagurian ng international community na “patriotic trolling.” 

Huwag kayong malito sa gamit ng terminong “patriotic” dahil ito ang klase ng trolling na nakaangkla sa baluktot na kahulugan ng pagkamakabayan. Sabi ng mga kampon nito, katanggap-tanggap ang marahas na lengguwahe, masagwang asal, at pagpapakalat ng pagkamuhi dahil ito’y para sa presidente ng bayan.

Sa Huwebes, araw ni Andres Bonifacio – ang bayani ng masa, ang bayani ng mga manggagawa – magbigay-pugay rin tayo sa matatapang na tumatangan sa sulo ng katotohan.  

Silang nais na basagin ang katahimikan na dulot ng pananakot at paniniil sa online space, sila rin ay tunay na naglilingkod sa bayan.

Silang nais bawiin ang internet mula sa mga tumambang sa makatwiran at mahinahong debate, sila ang pinakabagong bayani.

At katulad nila, sa Bonifacio Day, italaga natin ang mga sarili na maging bayani sa kahit maliit nating sulok sa internet. Panatilihin natin itong may liwanag at malaya. – Rappler.com

In a recent speech in Taguig City, President Duterte made a plea for someone to kill him so he could be enshrined in the country’s pantheon of national heroes. This is the man’s most recent public request for assisted suicide or euthanasia so he can join the immortals.

The first time the country heard it was during the third presidential debate in 2016, when he said he would jet ski alone to our islands in the West Philippine Sea, saying that he wouldn't mind being killed by the Chinese since he always dreamt of dying a hero’s death. 

We dismissed that as histrionics then. But he has made this remark several times since then, and I would not be surprised if we will hear it again at the upcoming DDS rally on November 30, Bonifacio Day.

Death wish

The man obviously has a death wish, and this is not unusual coming from someone responsible for the murder of several thousand people since, as psychotherapists will tell you, just as depression is the twin of mania, so is masochism the other face of sadism. Some people obsessed with their death, however, don’t have the courage to kill themselves. Thus their request for assistance to dispatch them to the afterlife.

Were the President to request this favor of me, I’m afraid I’d have to refuse him since euthanasia is against the law and I'm a law-abiding citizen. And no one in the opposition, not even the irrepressible Mr Sonny Trillanes, would be foolish enough to oblige him. 

But since the President seems to be desperate and since providing counsel is all perfectly legal, I'd like to offer some unsolicited advice on how to go about suicide or euthanasia properly, drawing on the examples of heads of states and others who have gone through the process.

Go sooner rather than later

The first person to come to mind is, of course, Adolf Hitler, who committed suicide along with his partner Eva Braun as Soviet troops closed in on his Berlin bunker in April 1945. However, I don't think Hitler is a good model, for had he decided to leave for Valhalla earlier, thousands of people would not have lost their lives in the doomed effort to preserve his Third Reich. 

Timing is everything, Mr President. If you want to go, go sooner rather than later, since so many lives would be saved by your early departure.

Perhaps the most dramatic suicide of a head of state was that of Brazilian President Getulio Vargas. In the midst of a political crisis in 1954, he shot himself, leaving a suicide note to Brazilians which read: “Nothing remains except my blood. I gave you my life, now I give you my death. I choose this way to defend you, for my soul will be with you, my name shall be a flag for your struggle.” 

It concluded: “I take the first step to eternity. I leave life to enter history.” Vargas was no angel, but coming from him, such words moved a great many Brazilians.

Coming from Duterte, however, such a note would probably be dismissed as just another exercise in hyperbole by Filipinos fed up with a congenital hyperbolero.

Closer to home was the suicide of former Korean president Roh Moo-Hyun, who jumped to his death in 2009 after members of his family were charged with receiving bribes from a Korean businessman. Roh was reacting to accusations of hypocrisy since he had run for president on an anti-corruption platform. 

Apparently, suicide was for Roh the only honorable way out. His suicide statement read: “What I have to do now is bow to the nation and apologize. From now on, the name Roh cannot be a symbol of the values you pursue. I'm no longer qualified to speak about democracy and justice....You should abandon me.” 

Now, that would be the kind of contrite message I would like Duterte to leave behind. I doubt, however, if such a note would be enough to evoke forgiveness from the loved ones of those subjected to EJK.

One might also advise the president on how not to depart. The best example I can think of in this regard is Japan's wartime prime minister, General Hideki Tojo. Apparently convinced that the victorious Americans were going to make him the scapegoat for Japan’s imperial war so they could absolve the Emperor Hirohito of guilt and use him to legitimize the allied occupation of Japan, Tojo shot himself in the chest. 

He made a mess of it. Now, in the Japanese military's bushido culture, nothing was worse than a suicide attempt that failed because it was done unprofessionally, with egregious violations of sacrosanct ritual. Having become an object of ridicule and suspected of not really wanting to kill himself, Tojo died an ignominious death, being hanged for war crimes in 1948. So the lesson for our dear President: don't mess it up or folks will think you weren't really serious.

A model suicide cum euthanasia

For a model suicide, however, one must look beyond the ranks of chiefs of state. The President cannot have a better example than the enormously talented Japanese novelist Yukio Mishima. In November 1970, the right-wing writer walked into the Tokyo headquarters of Japan’s Eastern Self Defense Force, hogtied the commanding general, then proceeded to harangue some 1000 troops from a balcony, encouraging them to stage a coup. 

When the troops heckled him instead, he stabbed himself with a dagger and, according to the New York Times, “cut a straight line across his abdomen while a student slashed off his head with a Japanese sword [which was] part of the ritual practice of hara kiri, in which a man asks his best friend to stand behind and deliver the coup de grace.” 

This was, in other words, suicide cum euthanasia to ensure that Mishima really, really joined his ancestors. Or as butchers at the Cubao wet market would put it, sinigurado na siya'y dobolded.

Now, whether Duterte will actually join the immortals after a glorious suicide cum euthanasia like Mishima's is another question. Being responsible for killing 13,000 Filipinos is not exactly something that would make Rizal, Bonifacio, Mabini, or Greg del Pilar welcome you to their company. In fact, even on earth, it is unlikely that the management of the Libingan ng mga Bayani could be persuaded to take his remains for fear of provoking daily protests against the interment in its grounds of a mass murderer.

But not to worry: We can probably persuade Duterte’s right-wing buddy and admirer, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe of Japan, to reserve a plot for him in the section of the Yasukuni Shrine that is reserved for the Class A War Criminals. For after all, Duterte qualifies as a war criminal, being the mastermind of the so-called “war on drugs”, and as a war criminal, he is definitely Class A. – Rappler.com

*A member of the House of Representatives from 2009 to 2015, Walden Bello made the only recorded resignation-on-principle in the history of the Congress of the Philippines owing to principled differences with the administration of former President Benigno Aquino III. 

First, the facts.

On Monday, November 27, 11 men were arrested in a hotel in Bonifacio Global City for drug possession and drug use. The men were reported to have in their possession an estimated P387,000 worth of illegal drugs that included 40 tablets of ecstasy, two sachets of crystal meth (shabu), and 14 bottles of gamma hydroxybutyrate (GHB) or what is known as liquid ecstasy.

It was deemed a successful drug bust operation. The Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) presented the suspects to the media.

Details about the suspects that were shared on social media and in news reports included: mugshots with complete name of suspects, profession or industries they work in. One suspect was reported to be living with HIV and the others were then reported to be possibly infected.

The news broke last night on networks, social media, and chat rooms. Public health advocates and members of the LGBT community decried the police and media coverage of the case.

Promoting stigma and discrimination

Why the uproar? What was so problematic about the handling of this drug bust?

“The arrest was done in good faith and with cause. But what raised red flags was the treatment and public outing of the PLHIV (person living with HIV),” said Jayce Perlas, an HIV advocate.

“I found it offensive that they made one suspect admit he was HIV positive, named him and even made a sweeping generalization that all of them are possibly positive and how they could infect others.”

“Equally shocking is how some people in the gay community found nothing wrong in the proceedings and even condemned the suspects. Advocates have done so much to erase stigma, now a PLHIV is the bogeyman again,” lamented Perlas.

Additionally, the messaging and choice of words in news reports perpetuated the stigma about HIV that prevent people from getting tested and seeking treatment. Along with consistent condom use, HIV testing and anti-retroviral therapy (ART) are the two interventions that have been scientifically proven to be successful in curbing the spread of HIV infections.

One news report stated that “malamang contaminado na silang lahat” or “they are all probably contaminated now”.

That is inaccurate. HIV can only be transmitted through unprotected sex, sharing of infected needles and from HIV+ pregnant mothers to their baby.

If you are tested, go on ART and diligently follow your regimen, a PLHIV’s viral load (the level of the HIV virus tested in your blood) can reach undetectable levels. The premise is if the HIV virus is undetectable, it is untransmissable.

In short, ART can cut virus levels to a point of up to 96% or where a PLHIV cannot transmit the virus to another person.

UNAIDS released a list of terminology guidelines and language tips which discourage inflammatory words with derogatory connotations like “contaminate”.

Consider the connotations of “contaminate” versus a more neutral word like ‘transmission” of HIV. (READ: Making Effective HIV & AIDS Information Materials)

Secondly, the sharing of the mugshots and complete names of the suspects triggered a social media witch hunt to track the men down. Now cruel memes have begun to circulate in frenzy.

Particularly distressing is how the mugshots are being shared as a warning about these individuals as if they were armed people running loose and dangerous. This is discriminatory and disproportionate.

“The group involved in the arrest are what we call part of the ‘alter world’. These are discrete MSM (men who have sex with men). They need a safe and anonymous place to express their sexuality,” said Roberto Figuracion Jr, an area coordinator for Family Planning Organization of the Philippines (FPOP) in Iloilo.

The group is extremely hard to identify and reach out to. Health workers like Figuracion spend a lot of time gaining the trust of these groups and using access to community events like pageants, clan eyeballs, and Party n Play parties to introduce HIV 101 and condom use lessons.

This kind of public shaming will drive this group deeper into hiding, further away from crucial HIV prevention interventions. It will further demonize drug use and likewise prevent people who use drugs from seeking care and support.

The handling of the case also violated certain provisions on confidentiality and discrimination stipulated in RA 8504 or the AIDS Prevention and Control Act.

What could have been done better

Jazz Tamayo, a lawyer for LGBT rights group Rainbow Rights acknowledged the PDEA’s fulfillment of its mandate but said that the case handling and media coverage were excessive and went beyond what was legally relevant.

“There was just too much information released to the public. I understand the need to disclose details of the case like kind and amount of drugs found at the scene and even the information about the health risks of trends like chemrom (chemical romance) parties, but there was no need to disclose details like profession, places of employment, HIV status and (presumed) sexual orientation of the suspects. These do not add value to the case,” explained Tamayo.

Tamayo also expressed concern about the disclosure of one suspect’s HIV status and the presumption that all suspects have HIV. “How did the authorities arrive at the conclusion that all of them have HIV?” asked Tamayo.

Under the law, HIV tests are done on a strictly voluntary basis with clear requirements of pre-test counselling and informed consent. Results of HIV tests are, likewise, treated with strict confidentiality.

Rappler reached out to PDEA Executive Director Aaron Aquino who said that the suspect told one of his officers that he was HIV positive. According to Aquino, the officer was telling the suspects that their behavior was risky.

According to another source, the suspect admitted his HIV status when he was asked to identify the “drugs” he had in his possession which turned out to be new generation antibiotics and ART tablets.

However, according to Tamayo, disclosure to one person of one's HIV status does not authorize disclosure to the public. Doing so is violation of the HIV law.

Ideally, the mugshots of suspects and employment details should not have been released. Neither should there have been pronouncements about their HIV status or sexual history. This could lead them to being discriminated against on account of their presumed HIV status. They could lose their jobs or be expelled from school.

Tamayo reminded employers and schools that the HIV law explicitly prohibits discrimination based on HIV status or presumed HIV status.

Aquino could no longer be reached for further comment but had earlier said that releasing mugshots and names of suspects were all part of standard operating procedure (SOP). He also said that the suspects had undergone drug tests and tested positive.

If this is what we consider SOP for the treatment and arrest of suspects, then we should perhaps take a step back and re-evaluate the ramifications of what happened and consider a public health approach rather than punitive approach to illegal drugs.

This is a learning moment for everyone, the media, and law enforcement. We can all do our part in easing the stigma of HIV and creating a less hostile environment both for people who use drugs and people living with HIV. An environment where they will want to access services and intervention because they will feel safe.

"As advocates...we have to stand against the basic violations of human dignity that were perpetrated here. We cannot be angry about the disclosure of HIV status alone, but not care about the way these men were treated as drug suspects,” Mara Quesada, executive director of ACHIEVE posted on Facebook.

“Remember that when we allow the violation of one human right, we allow the violation of all human rights. If we accept the inhuman treatment of one person, even a drug user, we allow the degradation of all humanity,” Quesada concluded. – Rappler.com

The rallies for a so-called Revolutionary Government (“RevGov”) have alarmed many sectors of the citizenry. 

People have cause to be worried because the rallies are blatantly pushing for tearing up the Constitution and replacing it with a regime that would be a thinly-veiled dictatorship that would concentrate power in the hands of the president. But even as the people must take this threat seriously and oppose it, it must also be pointed out that the push for a Revolutionary Government is a sign of confusion and disagreement within the political coalition supporting President Rodrigo Duterte.

Conflicting agenda in the Duterte coalition

The faction pushing for the RevGov finds itself at cross-purposes with the faction that prefers to change the political system via charter change through a constituent assembly, and the two, in turn, are pitted against those who would prefer the political status quo and pour their efforts to winning the Senate and House elections in 2019. 

The electoral campaign has already begun for the last group, and the RevGroup’s agenda would suspend if not abolish the electoral process and could do away with the seats they are vying for.  While united in their support for Duterte, the factions are in disagreement on their strategies for perpetuating Dutertismo. 

These groups are fighting for Duterte’s ear, and the RevGroup’s rallies are a “show of force” meant as much for us ordinary citizens as for the other forces in the Duterte coalition and for Duterte himself.

Most of the political and elites that have coalesced around Duterte for opportunistic reasons are likely to prefer to advance Duterte’s authoritarian agenda without too much damage to those constitutional processes like local and national elections that would allow them to legitimately have a share of power. Many of them are, in fact, of two minds about charter change because it could lead to unpredictable consequences that could erode their hold on political office and economic power. 

Their agenda is for Duterte to use authoritarian means to prop up the political and economic status quo without a drastic break from the current political order. They don’t mind Duterte’s trampling on the human rights of the poor and vulnerable with his extrajudicial executions, but they would mind his limiting their access to political office and curbing their economic power.

The RevGov gang

Many of those advocating a Revolutionary Government, in contrast, are frustrated middle class supporters, political adventurers, ex-military rebels, and ex-activists who want to have a larger share of the political and economic power that they feel is now monopolized by what they view as the “oligarchs” that have “hijacked” Duterte. 

These people do not seek system change; they simply want a share of the spoils. But in contrast to the elites allied with Duterte, they are conscious of the dangers of Duterte’s slipping popularity among the masses that voted for him owing to his failure so far to deliver concrete measures that would make a difference in their lives. However, the absence of a program of social and economic reform in the RevGov agenda shows that its partisans have no answer to people’s aspirations other than the advocacy of an authoritarian order.

So far the Duterte coalition has been held together by the different factions’ common cause against the so-called Yellows or Dilawan and by their support for Duterte’s War on the Poor that masquerades as a “War on Drugs".  The RevGov rallies reveal, however, that there are serious tensions within the coalition – tensions may break out in open conflict very soon.

Duterte’s dilemma

Where is Duterte in all this? We should expect him to throw some crowd-pleasing lines to the RevGov partisans. He knows, however, that unilaterally abolishing the current constitutional order would also mean destroying the source of his legitimacy as chief executive which he derives from the constitutionally sanctioned process of succession via national elections. 

It would expose him to efforts to depose him by forces that would justify their moves as efforts to restore the constitutional order, whatever might be their real intentions. Duterte is likely to be especially worried about the military, which he does not control, like he does the police, where ambitious officers, jealous of their peers in power in Thailand and Myanmar, would welcome his destroying the Constitution to unleash their own projects to grab political power. 

A Revolutionary Government would most likely lead not to authoritarian stability but to a succession of destabilizing military coups. This scenario, more than anything else, is what prevents the President from giving the green light to the RevGov faction.

Counterrevolution, not revolution

The recent turn of events should remind us that the Duterte coalition remains, in many ways, an alliance of convenience among forces that have disparate agenda behind their common support for Duterte’s war on the poor, due process, and human rights.

It underlines that there is nothing progressive about the Duterte agenda. 

The revolutionary rhetoric employed by some forces in the alliance simply masks their agenda of having a larger piece of the political and economic pie. A program of social, economic, and political transformation to bring about greater equality and justice is the last thing they have in mind.   

The so-called Duterte Revolution is, in fact, more appropriately termed a counterrevolution rather than a continuation of the glorious revolution of 1896 led by Gat Andres Bonifacio. – Rappler.com

*A member of the House of Representatives from 2009 to 2015, Walden Bello made the only resignation on principle in the history of Congress owing to principled differences with the administration of former President Benigno Aquino III. 

It may have escaped your notice, but for the first time in 15 years the Philippine economy’s “twin deficits” are back.

A “budget deficit” occurs when the government’s spending has exceeded its revenues. Meanwhile, a “current account deficit” roughly means that a country’s imports have exceeded its exports.

After many years, we are again experiencing them both simultaneously. What do these deficits mean? Are they important? Should you care?

These deficits tell us a lot about the Duterte government’s policies and how they might affect the Philippine economy. In fact, our future incomes could very well depend on how well they are managed by the Duterte government.

Spending beyond our means

First, a budget deficit occurs when the government spends beyond its means. Although budget deficits are fairly common, we’re now reaching record highs in the Duterte administration.

In October 2017 alone, the national government’s budget deficit grew more than eightfold from last year. For the first 10 months of 2017, the budget deficit grew more slowly at 9%.

Figure 1 below shows the long-run trend of the budget deficit. Since President Duterte came into power, the budget deficit (particularly its 12-month moving average) has reached its highest point since the early 2000s.

Figure 1.

Incurring budget deficits is not bad per se. Just like any household or firm, the government also needs to spend beyond its means from time to time.

For example, when the government has important items to spend on – such as key infrastructure projects and social services – then budget deficits are okay. In fact, they may even be taken as a sign that the government is seriously investing in the country’s future growth.

But at the same time, we want the budget deficit to be sustainable. After all, each month of budget deficit adds to the country’s stock of debt.

The Duterte administration is aiming for a budget deficit ceiling of 3% of GDP. The problem is, we are already skirting dangerously close to this limit, and there are many reasons to believe that the budget deficit will keep growing in the coming years.

On the one hand, public spending is expected to balloon because of the many ambitious projects of the Duterte administration. These include Dutertenomics or “Build, Build, Build” (costing P8.4 trillion); free college tuition (P100 billion per year); Marawi rehabilitation (P90 billion); and PUV modernization (P417 billion).

At the same time, the government’s future revenues are not expected to be commensurately large. The first phase of the tax reform bill (TRAIN) is expected to yield just P160 billion based on the version passed by the Senate. When it undergoes the bicameral conference committee, its projected revenue will likely go down further.

Ambitious projects are fine. But having too little revenues chase too many large public spending items could spell even wider budget deficits for the rest of President Duterte’s term.

Another concern with expansionary fiscal policy is that it could “overheat” the economy. With an economy already growing fast at around 6-7%, a spending boom could result in higher demand and a faster rise of prices (that is, higher inflation).

The IMF recently warned us about this. But the Bangko Sentral downplayed such worries and stands ready to “cool down” the economy by raising interest rates if needed.

Borrow, borrow, borrow

How can the Duterte government finance its ever-widening budget deficits?

First, it can borrow domestically through the issuance of government securities like bonds and Treasury bills. Domestic borrowings jumped by 47.3% in the first 10 months of 2017 from last year.

Second, the government can borrow directly from abroad. Foreign borrowings – in the form of global bonds and loans from multilateral agencies – jumped by 13.5% in the first 10 months of 2017 from last year.

More foreign borrowings are in the pipeline. To finance the “revolutionary” revival of infrastructure, the Duterte government plans to issue $1-billion worth of global bonds in 2018. At the same time, the government is eyeing large, cheap loans from Japan and China, although it will take some time to settle these loans’ terms.

This uptick in foreign borrowing is corroborated by the return of current account deficits.

Basic macroeconomics tells us that the current account is largely made up of the difference between exports and imports. But more importantly, the current account reflects the difference between domestic savings and domestic investments. So when the latter exceeds the former, we can expect a current account deficit.

This is exactly what we see in the data. Figure 2 shows that, for the first time since 2002, the country is again incurring a current account deficit.

Figure 2.

A current account deficit signifies that we are, once again, a “net borrower” from the rest of the world (rather than a “net lender”). In essence, we are using foreign funds to make up for the shortage of domestic saving.

Hence, incurring current account deficits – just like any other form of borrowing – is not necessarily bad. The economic managers say that imports are surging because of increased demand for raw materials and capital equipment, which are being used by the private sector and the government to construct new infrastructure or industrial projects. All these are expected to boost future growth.

The funny thing with this claim, however, is that the growth of private investments has, in fact, slowed down since Duterte’s term started: from 21.7% in the Q2 of 2016, to 6.6% in the Q3 of 2017. (Government spending growth, meanwhile, has picked up.)

Rather than worry about the current account deficit per se, we should worry more about the timeliness, profitability, and productivity of the investment projects it funds.

If such projects are delayed, ill-conceived, wasteful, or riddled with graft and corruption (like what happened so many times in the past), our ability to repay these new borrowings will be compromised, and this could lead to debt problems later on.

Beware unsustainable deficits

In the past, the Filipino people paid dearly when the government ignored the warning signs brought by fast-rising twin deficits.

Recall that the Marcos government also embarked on an infrastructure spending spree financed by huge loans from abroad. Like today, this was manifested in ballooning budget and current account deficits.

But the Marcos government, especially during Martial Law, responded by continuing to borrow even more. This reckless, mindless debt orgy led to a full-blown debt crisis and culminated in the country’s deepest postwar recession.

Today, we are far from experiencing a similarly bad economic crisis. The economy’s fundamentals are robust, and the economic managers are constantly vigilant about potential sources of risk and uncertainty.

But one can’t help notice that the Duterte and Marcos economic strategies – a huge infrastructure spending spree financed by deficits – are eerily similar.

With the comeback of twin deficits today, we will do well to keep an eye on our new borrowings and make sure that we spend their proceeds on fruitful projects. Otherwise, before we know it, we might all be heading back to the economic troubles of the past. – Rappler.com

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

(Sing to the tune of Pasko Na Sinta Ko)

Pasko na sa office ko
Secret Santa na naman
Mug na lang regalo ko
’Yung may design na matino

Kung nahihirapan ka 
Sa iyong Secret Santa
Sa bazaar maghanap ka
O iregalo’y pera.

– Rappler.com

Artwork by Shellette Gipa
Text by Marguerite de Leon

#FridayFeels is a cartoon series by the Rappler Creatives Team. Cathartic, light, but relevant, it's a welcome break from your heavy news feed! You can pitch illustration ideas by sending a message to the Rappler Facebook page.

May dahilan ang mga tao na mag-alala sa mga rali ngayon na nagtutulak na baguhin ang Konstitusyon at mapalitan ang gobyerno ng isang rehimen, na sa katotohanan ay isang diktadurya kung saan ang pangulo lang ang may kontrol sa poder.

Ngunit kahit na dapat seryosohin ang banta ng isang RevGov (revolutionary government) at tutulan ito, ang pagtulak dito ng gobyerno ay nangangahulugang may kaguluhan at di-pagkakasundo sa loob ng koalisyong pampulitika ni Presidente Rodrigo Duterte.

Magkakatunggaling balakin

Ang pangkat na nagtutulak sa RevGov ay katunggali ng mga nagtutulak ng pagbabago sa sistemang pampulitika sa pamamagitan ng pag-amyenda sa Konstitusyon sa ilalim ng constituent assembly. At ang dalawang paksyon ay salungat naman sa isa pang gupong ang gusto’y manatili ang status quo at ipanalo na lang nila ang mga puwesto sa Senado at Mababang Kapulungan sa 2019. 

Para sa ikatlong paksyon, nag-umpisa na ang kampanyang elektoral, at magugulo lang ito ng agenda ng RevGov, lalo na kung di matutuloy ang eleksyon. Nagkakaisa ang mga paksyon sa pagsuporta kay Duterte, ngunit hindi sila nagkakasundo kung paano ipagpapatuloy ang Dutertismo. 

Pinag-aawayan nila kung sino ang papakinggan ni Duterte, at ang mga rali para sa RevGov ay para magpakita ng puwersa o lakas sa ordinaryong mamamayan, sa ibang mga paksyon, at kay Duterte mismo.

Karamihan sa mga sumuporta kay Duterte para sa kanilang mga pampulitika at pang-ekonomiyang interes ay naghahangad na maisulong ang authoritarian agenda nang di mawawasak ang mga konstitusyonal na proseso, tulad ng lokal at pambansang eleksyon na magiging daan nila para makakuha ng poder sa lehitimong paraan. Marami sa kanila ay di desidido sa charter change dahil di tiyak ang magiging epekto nito sa kanilang kapangyarihang pampulitika’t pang-ekonomiya.

Ang balakin ng grupong ito ay gumamit ng awtoritaryang pamamaraan para mapanatili ang status quo nang di kumakalas sa kasalukuyang kaayusang pampulitika. Balewala sa kanila kung labagin ni Duterte ang karapatang pantao ng mahihirap sa pamamagitan ng extrajudicial killing, ngunit mabababahala sila kung lilimitahan ni Duterte ang kanilang hawak sa kapangyarihan sa ekonomiya at pulitika.

Ang gang ng RevGov

Ang mga nagtutulak sa RevGov ay mga dismayadong tagasuporta ni Duterte mula sa panggitnang uri, mga adbenturista sa pulitika, mga dating rebelde sa militar, dating mga aktibista na naghahangad ng mas malaking bahagi sa poder pampulitika at ekonomiya. Sa tingin nila, na-hijack ng oligarkiya si Duterte at ang mga ito ang may monopolyo ngayon sa poder.

Hindi pagbabago sa sistema ang gusto nila; ang hangad lang nila ay makasalo ng ganansya. Bagaman ang layunin nila ay makasali sa hatian ng “spoils,” nag-aalala rin sila sa pababang popularidad ni Duterte sa masang bumoto sa kanya dahil hindi ito nakapaghatid ng kongkretong pagbabago sa buhay ng mga tao. Ngunit dahil sa kawalan ng programang panlipunan at pang-ekonomiya sa agenda ng RevGov, wala silang sagot sa aspirasyon ng mga tao kundi ang itulak ang awtoritaryanismo.

Nagkakaisa lang ang mga paksyon sa pagiging kontra sa mga Dilawan at sa suporta nila sa giyera sa mahihirap na nagpapanggap na giyera sa droga. Ngunit makikita sa mga pro-RevGov na pagtitipon na may seryosong tensyon sa loob ng koalisyon – tensyong maaaring sumabog at maging lantad.

Dilema ni Duterte

Nasaan si Duterte sa lahat ng ito? Asahan nating may sasabihin siyang maganda para sa mga tagasuporta ng RevGov. Ngunit alam din niya na kapag lumabas siya sa konstitusyonal na kaayusan ay para na rin niyang sinira ang sistemang naghalal sa kanya at pinagkukunan niya ng kapangyarihan.

Malalantad siya sa mga naghahangad na mapatalsik siya. Magkakaroon ng dahilan ang mga ito na tanggalin siya sa puwesto para ibalik ang konstitusyonal na kaayusan, maski hindi ito ang tunay hinahangad nila. Ang dapat ikabahala ni Duterte ay ang militar na di niya kontrolado, at naiinggit sa kapangyarihang taglay ng militar sa Thailand at Myanmar. Aabangan nila ang pagwasak ni Duterte sa Konstitusyon upang sunggaban din ang kapangyarihan.

Ang malamang na patutunguhan ng rebolusyonaryong gobyerno ay hindi matatag na awtoritaryanismo kundi mga kudeta na ang dulot ay destabilisasyon. Ang senaryong ito, higit sa iba, ang pumipigil sa Presidente upang payagan ang paksyon sa kanyang pamahalaan na sumusuporta sa rebolusyonayong gobyerno.

Kontra-rebolusyon, hindi rebolusyon

Batay sa mga nangyayari, makikita nating ang koalisyong sumusuporta kay Duterte ay may kanya-kanyang magkakaibang balakin, at nagkakasundo lang sila sa usapin ng giyera sa mahihirap, sa tamang proseso, at sa karapatang pantao.

Ipinakikita rin nito na walang progresibong agenda ang gobyerno ni Duterte.

Retorika lamang ang pagiging rebolusyonaryo para pagtakpan na ang tanging agenda nila ay makakuha ng mas malaking bahagi ng kapangyarihang pampulitika at pang-ekonomiya. Hindi nila iniisip ang pagbabagong ang hatid ay pagkakapantay-pantay at hustisya.

Ang sinasabing Rebolusyon ni Duterte ay mas tamang sabihing kontra-rebolusyon at hindi pagpapatuloy ng dakilang rebolusyon noong 1896 na pinamunuan ni Gat Andres Bonifacio. – Rappler.com

Basahin sa Ingles: [OPINION] Revolutionary government: Show of force...or sign of weakness?

Sa buong kasaysayan ng Kongreso, si Walden Bello ang kaisa-isang miyembro (2009-2015) ng Mababang Kapulungan na nagbitiw dahil sa prinsipyo. Siya ngayon ang pambansang pangulo ng Koalisyon Laban ng Masa.

On Thursday, Bonifacio Day, President Duterte announced he was no longer declaring a revolutionary government. Possibly, he meant what he said. Problem is he does not stay with the truth for long.

Authoritarianism has defined his leadership since he became mayor of Davao City, a position he had held for more than two decades, before he was elected president. His presidency has begun to acquire the same character to the extent possible in a constitutional democracy, but he's not stopping until the transformation becomes complete – fast.

Thus, he switched routes to dictatorship from martial law to revolutionary government to skip the congressional and judicial oversight powers to which the former is subject. Even after his own defense secretary and armed forces chief had declared that the military, the ultimate swing force, would not support a revolutionary government, he continued to push for it.

He began floating stories that enemies of all colors and persuasions – communists, terrorists, foreign agents, political armies, and sundry outlaws – were either plotting or had actually begun to mount plots against him. He was hoping yet to stir up enough popular clamor to trump the military and turn the tide in his favor.

That reckoning had been set for the annual national holiday designated for honoring the Philippines' greatest revolutionary, Andres Bonifacio. Duterte had been counting on a people-power-sized representation of the 16 million voters who gave him the plurality that won him the presidency.

But only a smattering came. The crowd looked even sparser on his Palace's broad front street, itself the stage of many protest demonstrations any one of which would put the turnout for him to shame. In fact, bigger and more numerous counter protests were held elsewhere in the metropolis and certain provincial cities on the same day.

That seems to have done it: he transformed from bellicose to benign. Or at least that's how he was portrayed by his spokesman, who tried to save the day for him by manufacturing tales.

Harry Roque said Duterte had only intended a revolutionary government for when the nation fell in extremis– "kung lupaypay na" were his exact words, which personify the nation as a man too weak to even raise himself back on his feet, which only makes things worse for Duterte. For, with him in charge, who else could bring the nation to such helplessness?

In fact, that prospect is already perceivable from the Duterte presidency's utter lack of achievement after a year and a half and the deterioration all around of the state of the nation: 

• the trains are breaking down, and the roads are becoming more and more overburdened, slowing the movement of people and goods accordingly;
• investments are down to a trickle;
• the treasury is fast becoming depleted, saddled in particular by the expense of two overkill wars: one, on terrorism and brigandage, was just recently ended, leaving a city in total ruins; the other, against drug dealers and users, has taken thousands of lives and goes on amid worldwide protests it has provoked of summary executions;
• government operations are messed and stunk up by inefficiency, mediocrity, and corruption, not to mention poor taste.

But take away all that, and Duterte would still itch for dictatorship. That’s because he suffers from a condition that triggers a reflex and takes away any sense of deliberation from its sufferer. It's an itch far more serious than anything caused by a skin problem like, say, a fungus and one that cannot be relieved by scratching, because it is symptomatic of something mental: it determines predisposition; indeed, it goes into the very reason why this nation has been brought into its descent into authoritarianism.

Not to forget, the disorder has been certified to professionally and noted judicially, having been admitted into evidence in the annulment case Duterte’s wife had brought against him, and won. Now that he is president and appears to relish public appearances, his “antisocial narcissistic personality disorder” – that’s what it is called clinically – has become even more richly manifest.

Duterte’s pronouncement renouncing revolutionary government recalls the promise he gave before his presidential installation to "metamorphose into a butterfly." Both speak to a pathological incapability: dictator is the only thing Rodrigo Duterte knows how to be. – Rappler.com

Kapansin-pansin ang mga pagtira ng administrasyong Duterte sa mga haligi ng ating demokrasya sa pamamagitan ng bantang impeachment sa mga pinuno ng Korte Suprema at ng Ombudsman. Nagkataon pang pareho silang babae: sina Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno at Conchita Carpio-Morales.

Nitong nakaraang linggo at hanggang sa darating na Martes, tuloy ang pagdinig ng House of Representatives justice committee sa impeachment complaint laban kay Sereno. Bago ito, mismong ang Palasyo – sa pamamagitan ni Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque – ang nagsabing dapat nang magbitiw si Sereno upang di niya makaladkad paimburnal ang Korte Suprema. May basbas pa ng Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte ang kasong inihain laban kay Sereno.

Di lang ’yan. Di pa nasiyahan ang Kongreso sa sinabi ng Malacañang. Nakiduweto pa si House justice committee chairman Reynaldo Umali nang nagbanta siya noong Nobyembre na maaaring ipaaresto ng kanyang komite si Sereno kung di ito magpakita sa hearing.

Nakalimutan na ba ng ehekutibo at lehislatura ang prinsipyo ng separasyon ng kapangyarihan sa mga sangay ng gobyerno? Di ba’t nakabatay ito sa konsepto ng tinatawag na check and balance sa isang demokrasya, upang ang kalabisan ng isa ay masusing masuri ng ibang sangay ng gobyerno?

Pero tila sinasadya ang pagpapahina ng mga institusyong may kapangyarihang sumangga sa mga posibleng kalabisan ng nasa ehekutibo.

Ano nga ba ang nakasaad sa Saligang Batas tungkol sa pagtanggal ng isang opisyal sa puwesto sa pamamagitan ng impeachment? Dapat daw may paglabag sa Konstitusyon, pagtataksil sa bayan, panunuhol, katiwalian at korupsyon, iba pang imoralidad at paglabag sa batas, o betrayal of public trust. Mabigat dapat ang mga pagkukulang at tahasan ang paglabag sa Konstitusyon.

Pero kakaiba ang naganap noong nakaraang linggo sa pagdinig ng House justice committee. Animo’y nagsusumbong ang isang mahistrado sa Kongreso ukol sa mga di pagkakasundo sa loob ng Korte Suprema.

Sabi ni Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, di raw sinagot ni Chief Justice Sereno ang sulat niya na kumukuwestiyon sa naging desisyon nitong may kinalaman sa RCAO o Regional Court Administration Office. Nagtalaga raw si Sereno ng ibang pinuno ng sariling likha nitong Judiciary Decentralized Office o JDO. Wala ito sa usapan ng en banc o kabuuan ng Korte Suprema. Dahil diyan dapat siyang dumaan sa impeachment o pagtataluwalag.

Di kami pumapanig kay Sereno, pero gaya nga ng nasulat na ng dating dean na si Tony La Viña, kailangan ng prima facie evidence na magpapakita na may malisya o intensyon sa pagkilos o pagdedesisyon ni Sereno. Kung wala iyan, nagmimistula lang itong away sa bahay o sa pamilya na dapat ayusin ng mga mahistrado.

Kung matatalino sila katulad ng pag-aakala ng iba, kaya nilang ayusin ang ganyang gusot nang di kailangang magsumbong pa sa isang kapantay na sangay ng gobyerno upang mapanatili ang dignidad ng institusyong kinabibilangan nila.

Sa panahon ngayon, higit kailan, kailangang manatiling malakas ang mga independiyenteng institusyong katulad ng Korte Suprema at Ombudsman. Bakit? Dahil nararamdaman natin ang ihip ng hangin patungo sa direksyon ng awtoritaryanismo, kung di man paghahangad ng monopolyo ng kapangyarihan ng isang pinuno na kayang sagasaan ang lahat, pati na ang batas, masunod lang ang kanyang kagustuhan.

Isa raw sa kahinaan ng mga Pilipino ay ang madaling paghahati-hati at paghihiwahiwalay. Ang pagiging utak talangka ay isa sa mga nagpapadali sa pagbuwag sa mga institusyong bahagi ng isang demokrasya.

Sa Martes, ipagpapatuloy ang pagdinig ng House justice committee sa impeachment complaint laban kay Sereno, at patuloy rin ang pagtawag ng iba’t ibang empleyado at iba pang mahistrado ng Korte Suprema. Ang kadulu-duluhan nito’y ang Senado na siyang huhusga kung may sapat na dahilan nga upang tanggalin sa puwesto si Sereno.

Bago ang lahat ng ito, mainit ang atensyon sa pagkakadawit ng anak ng Pangulo na si Paolo Duterte at ang manugang na si Manases Carpio sa mga alegasyon ng korupsyon at sa pagkakapuslit ng P6.4 bilyong halaga ng shabu. Parang naglaho na sila sa mga imbestigasyon.

Habang mahalagang manatiling matino ang mga pinuno ng Korte Suprema at ng Ombudsman, kailangang manatiling alerto ang lahat at di nababaling ang atensyon sa mga palabas na likha ng mga pulitikong may sariling interes o agenda. Ginagawa nilang aliwan lamang ang impeachment ng mga opisyal ng independiyenteng constitutional bodies. – Rappler.com

This letter may surprise you. I know that you have repudiated my pastoral care for you, using rather spicy words, which I am made to understand is in congruence with Cebuano culture.

I understand that your anger at me comes from the the fact that I caused traffic during my last visit there. A more serious reason is your accusation that you experienced sexual abuse from a man of the cloth when you were growing up.

But I write in the light of your recent outburst.

At the onset I want to make clear that I regard all human beings as my sons and daughters. It comes with the calling.

And while you have called me names, my daughter Leila has never rejected me nor the Church. Indeed she has repeatedly stated that her strength and her peace in these months of her greatest trial is her deep faith. She views her imprisonment as a spiritual trial and believes that in enduring this, she grows stronger yet.

Thus when she asked me to pray for her and all other victims of human rights violations in the Philippines, it did not seem out of character for her.

You do know Rodrigo, that prayer is something I consider central to my person and to the role I play in this world? You do know as well that I pray for everyone – the innocent as well as the guilty, the weak and the strong, young and old, women and children, democrats and fascists, believers and unbelievers.

For millennia now, my predecessors have also given their blessings to those who seek it. We follow the act of Christ himself who, even if He took everyone into His heart, was particularly gracious to those who petitioned him. In case you feel that this is fake news that I just made up for the occasion, I invite you to come to Rome. Crowds come from all over the world to seek prayers.

I must also explain that I am guided by a book that is the definitive work on all matters as far as I am concerned. It is called the Bible. The Bible instructs me and all other Christians to have compassion particularly for those in prison. For example it says, “Naked, and ye clothed me: I was sick, and ye visited me: I was in prison, and ye came unto me (Mathew 25:36).”

Think about it. Rodrigo. I am supposed to pray for everyone regardless of their political beliefs, their guilt or their innocence. I am supposed to pray particularly for Catholics, for those who ask and for those in prison. Concentrate your mind then and think, Rodrigo. Does this not describe Leila? In praying for her, was I not just doing my job?

So you see, Rodrigo, when I prayed for her there was no need for you to feel personally affronted. You need not have taken it as a rebuke.

In fact I would pray for you too. I bring this up very gently because it seems you have rejected me. But I ask you to reconsider. After all, I pray for everyone. The humble and the narcissistic, the self-confident and the paranoid, the victim of extrajudicial killings and the mass murderer.

I even pray for my daughter Sylvia. She is an agnostic and an RH advocate and a feminist. And she does tend to get quite critical of some of the Church’s politics. She has also always fought for the victims of clerical abuse. So I pray for her. Of course, in some things she agrees and works with Catholics and the Church, but even if this were not true, I would still pray for her.

Now Rodrigo, I do not want to insult you by comparing you to Sylvia. I know how you are very sensitive about your status. And indeed, you are by far the more important person here. But there is one thing you might learn from her. You see, though she does not believe in my Church, she is very respectful of those who do.

And because she does not see herself as my daughter (just as much as you seem to reject the idea that you are my son), she doesn’t have temper tantrums like a scorned child who is suffering from severe sibling jealousy whenever I do something special for anyone.

God in his omniscience knows of Sylvia’s youngest sons when they 4 years old and two years old. During the birthday of the younger son, Sylvia would prepare a few gifts for the 4-year-old who tended to get really jealous of the gifts received by the two-year-old. It was cute really.

But even at that young age, the 4 year-old never had a full-blown tantrum. He was never mean nor angry at the two-year-old for getting more. He never cursed people who gave gifts to his younger brother, never threatened to shame his younger brother. Being omniscient, Rodrigo, God knows you are 68 years older than a 4-year-old.

Really Rodrigo, a sex video? You need not be omniscient to know that that was uncalled for. In fact a whole bunch of people with the mentality of adolescents (aka certain congressmen) had to withdraw their threat to show that very same video when millions of adult Filipino women protested.

One of the things Sylvia and I have agreement in is the need to redress the age-old misogyny of society. Slut-shaming has no place anywhere.

My dear, dear, son. I know you have not fully repudiated me because you were so hurt by my gift to Leila of a rosary. Don’t worry. I will send you a gift too. If it worked for Sylvia’s 4-year-old, it might work for you too. You are after all, more mature than that.

I am sending you the pen that I used to write to Leila. You might want to use it to sign something too. A letter of apology to all women, a letter of protest to me or a bank waiver. Use the pen as God moves you.

Prayerfully yours,

Francis

Sylvia Estrada Claudio is a Professor of Women and Development Studies of the UP College of Social Work and Community Development. This letter came to her during a psychotic break. She doubts its provenance and is certain she did not channel any living spiritual leader. Furthermore, any similarities to known personalities and events are a result of her psychotic reasoning. She prays Catholics will forgive her for any similarities they may perceive.

Here's a thought experiment. Imagine going to a high school classroom in the Philippines and surveying the students on what field they want to enter after graduating college. I'll wager you'll get every answer in the book, spanning from real estate and information technology to industrial manufacturing and corporate law. If you listen to enough answers, you may notice one glaring omission: public health.

This issue holds true for the other countries in Southeast Asia, such as Indonesia, Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, and Thailand, which I've seen firsthand through my regional health-tech company, mClinica, but the situation is particularly acute here in the Philippines. The term "public health" may even be unfamiliar to many people in the country.

Public health encompasses the efforts to improve the health of a population through everything from a policy (think of the grisly images that now appear on every cigarette package in the Philippines) to an initiative (think of any barangay effort to encourage us to exercise more) or even to awareness (think of any poster you've seen against public smoking or some other health hazard).

As a Filipino who has dedicated her career to public health, this trend scares me. It should move you as well, and so I'd like to share with you why more young people should consider a career in public health, and why it's in our interest as a nation to encourage more of them to. I focus on 3 major reasons.

Create a better Philippines for everyone. Just as an organization must encourage work-life balance among employees to ensure that they are healthy enough to contribute long-term, so too is there a correlation between the physical well-being of a country's citizens and its financial prosperity. As the saying goes, health is wealth, and this is all the more true on the scale of cities and countries. To look at it one way, it's tough to develop intellectual property, innovate new products, or create new businesses if you're starving, ill, or frail. To coin a phrase: public health is public wealth. I see this truism play out in Singapore, where mClinica is headquartered, as the nation has a much higher supply of public health professionals. This focus has no doubt contributed to Singapore's rise as a major commerce hub in Southeast Asia.

As one of the fastest growing economies in the world, it's likewise in the interest of every person in the Philippines to improve our nation's public health if we wish to sustain this trajectory. To do so, we need to encourage more of our bright, young, local talent to devote their energies to this field, and protect what people have time and time again said is the country's most valuable resource: people.

Make a meaningful impact now. Almost every generation has this same desire but it applies to millennials all the more: Young people want to change the world. No matter your course of study or the occupation you want to take upon graduation, you want to make a difference. To change lives. To make an impact. This can be possible in any field, of course, but in those that are already saturated with talent in the Philippines, such as information technology or business process outsourcing, the barrier to create a difference is much higher.

In contrast, the demand for public health professionals in the Philippines is so high that it will be easier to enter into positions where you can make an impact. And what's more, the nature of public health is such that you will not only be able to make an impact, but you will be able to do so at scale. So while other professions may speak of changing the world in the abstract, your contributions stand to benefit thousands, if not millions of people in your communities and cities.

As a personal example, in Indonesia, one in every 4 pharmacists is part of an online platform we created to help their profession, whose network collectively reaches 70 million patients a month. That's just the kind of scale you deal with when you choose public health.

Harness both your talent and your passion. I have heard many others assume that to go into public health you need to have an advanced medical degree. This is simply not true. While public health of course has its share of doctors and pharmacists, there are just as many professionals in the field, if not more so, who come from widely different backgrounds and have different functional expertises.

As an example, there are many statisticians in public health, since biostatistics is one of its core fields. Similarly, you can also be a public health lawyer, a public health engineer, or a public health spokesperson (as I am sort of doing with this article). At mClinica, we employ a broad range of professionals all focused on improving public health regionally, including everyone from operations experts in Indonesia, to digital marketers in Vietnam, and graphic designers in the Philippines. In other words, public health is such an all-encompassing field that if you want to make a difference here, there will always be a way to harness your particular skill set, giving you one of the rare opportunities in life to combine your talent with your passion.

If we can use these angles to do a better job of promoting the allure of a career in public health, I have no doubt that the Philippines will continue its growth in public wealth. – Rappler.com

Phoebe Jane Elizaga is the Health Informatics Lead at mClinica. She is a registered nurse, a graduate of computer science from the University of the Philippines, and a Master of Science in Health Informatics (Medical Informatics Track) student at UP Manila.