The Supreme Court’s unparalleled move to allow a member of the Court to appear before a committee of a co-equal branch and testify against no less than the highest magistrate of the land is one that will be etched in history.

Yet for all the publicity – good or bad, depending on the source – that a justice of the Court appearing before the House committee on justice to determine whether or not a sitting Chief Magistrate should be impeached is, by any stretch of the imagination, actually bad for the Supreme Court and the judiciary as a whole.

It, in effect, undermines the independence of a separate branch of government by allowing another branch to encroach on its constitutional prerogative.

I am sure Justice Teresita Leonardo de Castro is sincere in her belief that doing what she did was the right thing to do, by narrating publicly her side on her disagreement with the Chief Justice on the matter of Administrative Order No. 175-2012 designating the head for the Judiciary Decentralized Office(JDO) in the Seventh Judicial Region.

In her mind, this order did not reflect previous Supreme Court en banc resolutions mandating the creation of the Regional Court Administrative Office (RCAO). However, without intending to, I am sure, Justice De Castro may have opened the door for Congress to stick its foot into internal matters.

Administrative matters should be properly resolved by the Supreme Court on its own; without interference from outside bodies and definitely without bringing in the political branches. Internal disagreements between and among members of the Court should also not be the subject of an impeachment complaint. Otherwise, the specter of continuous internal conflict within the Court will become a permanent feature among the so-called gods of Padre Faura.

It should be recalled that Justice De Castro stated that what the Chief Justice created (JDO) was a permanent office unlike the RCAO which was created by the Court as an ad hoc body to be implemented for only one year. She also mentioned that the existence of the JDO is dependent on the discretion of the Chief Justice; hence the character of permanency.

What might be missing here is that the creation of the JDO had been approved and ratified by the Supreme Court en banc by way of a resolution. That the Supreme Court supposedly withdrew its approval eventually, as De Castro was insinuating, is well within the Court’s prerogative. But this does not in any way constitute a rebuke on the Chief Justice’s action. Nor did it constitute a drastic move to brand her action illegal or unconstitutional.

After all, the Court occasionally reverses itself or overturns a decision by a division penned by a member, even one written by the Chief Justice himself or herself. The supposed setting aside of A.O. 175-2012 is, for all intents and purposes, of the same nature. In effect, the SC resolved the issue on the creation of RCAO. It is an internal matter as it involves the proper administration of the courts in the seventh judicial district; hence, the Court’s decision should have been deemed final.

On the alleged unauthorized creation of the JDO by the Chief Justice, the Supreme Court can create offices albeit ad hoc in nature until institutionalized by the legislative body in an appropriate legislative act. Thus, the Philippine Judicial Academy was created by the Supreme Court on March 12, 1996, under the leadership of then chief justice Andres R. Narvasa, through the issuance of Administrative Order No. 35-96.

Later its existence was mandated under Republic Act No. 8557. This is also true with the Public Information Office or PIO. As to whether or not the JDO assumed a permanent character is a matter of opinion but one cannot deny that the SC en banc can always deny its creation as it supposedly did abolish it when one was already existing. The bottom line is that the Chief Justice is not the Court; the existence of the JDO is dependent on the collective wisdom of the whole Court.

The RCAO was created as early as 2008 with a budget, personnel, and equipment. The Chief Justice did not create that office herself. Decentralization is a positive reform so the inefficiencies of decentralization are addressed. Needless to say, if all decisions were to be made in Manila, resolving concerns and administrative problems of judges and court personnel in far flung areas will have to wait; and delays are not only inefficient but can also cause undue wastage.

In my view, Justice De Castro’s appearance before the House Committee on Justice was unnecessary. She was called because the complainant said she was the source of documents. But she and reporter Jomar Canlas had denied it.

Rightly, Justice De Castro distances herself from the impeachment complainant Larry Gadon who has been accused of commiting perjury by alleging that he had personal knowledge of the grounds of his complaint. The good Justice, in the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Court, has a good reputation to protect.

Dragging her into this impeachment of her colleague, especially association with a flawed complaint and a process where the constitutional right to counsel and cross-examination of the Chief Justice has been denied, can damage that reputation. Already, some have questioned Justice De Castro’s motivations. I do not share that criticism and accept her explanation that she was just doing the right thing in voicing her objections.

The Supreme Court en banc did hear Justice De Castro’s objections and had already made decisions with respect to that. Indeed, in most of the grounds of impeachment alleged by Mr Gadon, the Supreme Court has made the necessary collegial decisions, making it unnecessary for the political branches to get involved.

For the record, I am not absolutely opposed to Justices and Supreme Court officials appearing before the House committee on justice. Impeachment is a solemn duty of the legislature with both houses of Congress assigned their designated roles. Everyone should cooperate in the process, as long as constitutional rights are safeguarded along the way.

Because of this, I support the Supreme Court decision allowing Justices and judicial officials to appear before the House Committee but subject to specific conditions and parameters. One of those conditions I am sure is that the questions they will be asked would be relevant to the impeachment. Administrative matters and all internal debates within the Court should be outside of this scope. Unfortunately, the De Castro appearance does not stand up to this requirement.

My hope is that, in the future, the scope of the questions to be directed to other Justices and court officials would be consistent with this scope. Otherwise, we are in a slippery slope towards the Supreme Court and the judiciary, already the weakest branch of government, becoming completely at the mercy of the political branches.

There is no walking back from that; future Chief Justices and Associate Justices will, from now on, become sitting ducks whenever they make decisions that displease powerful economic and political interests. – Rappler.com

The lawyer President and Commander-in-Chief’s verbal order for soldiers (AFP) to shoot armed rebels (NPA) on sight makes for interesting legal discourse, including for academic purposes, were it not more importantly a real life-and-death matter.  

The lawyer Vice-President has weighed in that the shoot-to-kill (STK) order is illegal, contrary to the Constitution, presumably its due process clause, as well as criminal procedure that allows a citizen’s (warrantless) arrest as the mode of suppression when a person has committed, is actually committing, or is attempting to commit a crime in one’s presence. 

The lawyer Presidential Spokesperson (and Presidential Adviser on Human Rights) has replied on two levels of law. On the level of international humanitarian law (IHL), he said that armed rebels in a non-international armed conflict like that between the NPA and the AFP are legitimate military targets. On the level of criminal law, he said that armed rebels are committing the crime of rebellion which involves taking arms against the government.

But he treads on dangerous ground when he conflates those two levels of law by (reportedly) saying that communists who took up arms against the government are legitimate military targets since they are committing a crime. He was later quoted as saying, “I assure you, no armed NPA will surrender to authorities. The options are to shoot them or [allow] our men in uniform to be shot by them…If there’s a war, all those involved [presumably referring to combatants] can be fired at…”

IHL does allow, during armed conflict, attacks directed against military targets, including combatants of both the state armed forces and anti-state organized armed groups, but this is not absolute and has certain limits. 

Among these are the fundamental IHL principles of military necessity and humanity as applicable under the circumstances, as pointed out in various guidance materials of the International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC). It may be possible to neutralize the military threat posed through capture or other non-lethal meansor options without additional risk to the operating forces or the surrounding civilian population. 

The armed rebel, or for that matter armed soldier, must be given the opportunity to surrender, depending on the circumstances. It cannot be presumed a priori that “no armed NPA will surrender to authorities,” because it has in fact happened. And any lethal self-defense can be justified only in the face of armed resistance.

At the level of criminal law and procedure, particularly where there is no armed encounter involved, perpetrators (like a rebel merely bearing arms) of the crime of rebellion are not to be treated as legitimate military targets but as suspects– in which case, they may not be deprived of life or liberty without due process of law, which due process is mainly the function of criminal procedure.   

This procedure does not contemplate the abuse of the worn-out excuse of nanlaban. This level of law is largely (at least conceptually) one of law enforcement or a police matter, as they say, not a military matter. It is dangerous to conflate these two matters, as the NPA is unfortunately doing under the CPP’s “People’s Democratic Government.”  

Given those two levels of law brought out (and we haven’t even dealt with the potentially complicating special criminal law on anti-terrorism), and some possible conflict of laws situations in the President’s foreseen coming (actually already arrived) “virulent” AFP-NPA encounters, it is time for all concerned to think through this legal situation. 

We have hardly scratched the surface of this in this limited space, and there is more work yet to do in preparing for the worst.

Unless, hoping against hope, we can still somehow rise from the “virulent” abyss we have just fallen into. If there are to be no more lost loved ones like Josephine Anne Lapiras and PO1 Joeffel Odon (how many times have we said this sort of hope over the years), the leaders of both sides will have to find it in their hearts and minds to see the need to at least try to stop that fall by way of a reasonable ceasefire accompanying reasonable peace talks. With more sincerity. – Rappler.com 

Soliman M. Santos Jr is presently a Judge of the Regional Trial Court (RTC) of Naga City, Camarines Sur. Heis a long-time human rights and IHL lawyer; legislative consultant and legal scholar; peace advocate, researcher and writer, whose initial engagement with the peace process was with the first GRP-NDFP nationwide ceasefire in 1986, particularly in his home region of Bicol, a long-time rural hotbed of the communist-led insurgency. 

MANILA, Philippines – History teacher Leloy Claudio defines three terms loosely thrown around by critics of President Rodrigo Duterte – dictator, fascist, and populist. Is the president any of the three?

Watch today's edition of Basagan Ng Trip. – 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

Was Martial Law needed to defeat the communists?

On 'The Duterte Reader' and identifying Digong

On Filipinos' obsession with titles

The case for a biased, honest media

2018 is fast approaching, but next year’s traffic promises to be as slow as ever. 

As proof of how bad the situation is, traffic has gotten worse not just in Metro Manila but also in key provincial cities.

For example, weekends at Tagaytay have ceased to be the pleasurable road trips they once were because of the regular migration of Manila traffic. The gridlock at Baguio during the ASEAN week also proved to be a living hell for tourists and residents alike.

The costs of worsening traffic are depressing. A recent study claimed that Filipinos now spend an average of 16 full days stuck in traffic each year. By 2022 some Southeast Asian cities – including Metro Manila – also risk experiencing “standstill” levels of traffic during peak hours (that is, average speeds of less than 10 kph).

Why does traffic keep getting worse, and what can we do to solve it once and for all?

In my view, incentives lie at the heart of our traffic problems, and this article outlines a framework for the policies that could correct such incentives. It’s important to get them right: no less than our country’s progress (and our collective sanity) is at stake.

Wrong incentives

There are too many vehicles on our roads – especially private cars – yet the incentives to reduce their purchase and use are absent.

Figure 1 shows the robustness of auto sales in recent years, borne by a combination of fast economic growth, rising incomes, low downpayments, and cheap auto loans. The growth of auto sales peaked at 40% in August 2014, but this has since gone down to 17% in October 2017.

Figure 1. Data include passenger and commercial vehicles.

Private vehicles are not just easy to own but also cheap to use.

Oil prices, for instance, have dropped significantly in 2014 and are expected to remain stable at $54/barrel in 2018. This is owing to OPEC’s weakening cartel and continued production from American oil companies.

All these mean affordable gas and diesel prices for Filipinos in 2018 (although the peso’s expected depreciation toward P55 per US dollar might counteract this).

The new roads, highways, and bridges under the government’s flagship “Build, Build, Build” program are also bound to make private vehicles use easier. But these will not necessarily abate road congestion: in fact, by reducing travel time, more roads could just induce people to take more trips rather than less.

The new expressway linkages up north and down south, for example, might explain the increasing migration of Manila traffic to provincial cities like Baguio and Tagaytay. (READ: Carmaggedon redux: Will building more roads solve our traffic problems?)

All in all, the incentives toward fewer private vehicles on the road are absent: their relative benefits are too high while their relative costs are too low.

Modernize public transport

But herein lies a possible two-part solution to our congestion problems: if we want fewer private vehicles on the road, we need to reduce their relative benefits and increase their relative costs.

How can we reduce the relative benefits of private vehicles? Government, together with the private sector, must provide viable, comfortable, and safe public transport options that people will actually want to patronize.

Trains are the most important mass transit vehicles, and the Duterte administration is indeed aiming to build new, ambitious train projects (like Metro Manila’s first subway and Mindanao’s first railway). Though exciting, it will take a long time before these train projects come into fruition.

In the meantime, buses and jeepneys will play a crucial role because, relative to cars, they could transport the same number of people using so little space (as illustrated below in Figure 2).

On EDSA, for example, the MMDA estimated in 2015 that private cars and taxis constituted 88% of vehicles but transported only 30% of people. In contrast, PUVs constituted 12% of vehicles but transported 70% of people. Hence, the faster we can tip the scale from cars and taxis to buses and jeeps, the better.

Figure 2. Source: RA Siy.

Here, the government’s push for PUV modernization will be crucial. If we can expedite the installation of bus rapid transport networks and replace old jeepneys with new, spacious ones, then more people will be nudged to leave their cars at home and choose to commute instead, helping free up our roads.

But can the Duterte government resist strong pressures and lobbying efforts from entrenched bus and jeepney operators? Here is where the President’s tough talk and action could actually work in the public’s favor.

Implement congestion pricing

On the flip side, we also need to make private vehicle ownership so costly that it discourages new purchases and frequent use.

One way is to impose higher taxes on autos and petroleum products. The tax reform bill pending in Congress aims to do exactly this.

But to effectively solve the traffic mess, perhaps it’s time to implement – once and for all – some form of “congestion pricing” which charges people a fee for their road use.

Congestion pricing is always a tough sell. In Stockholm, for example, it was initially met by fierce opposition: a whopping 70% of people disapproved it. But when they saw the resulting drastic improvement in rush hour traffic, approval ratings for congestion pricing shot up.

Figure 3 below shows what happened immediately after Stockholm implemented congestion pricing on January 3, 2006. It led to a permanent 20% reduction of vehicles during peak hours. (Watch here a related TED talk.)

Figure 3. Right before and after congestion pricing was implemented in Stockholm in 2006. Source: toolsofchange.com.

Why does congestion pricing work? Whenever we use roads, we impose costs on other people for the space we take up. When all of us ignore such costs, we end up “harming” each other unwittingly, thus resulting in road congestion.

To avoid congestion, therefore, people need to pay for the external costs of their road use. This can be done by charging a “congestion fee” which increases during peak hours (e.g., 8 am and 5 pm) and decreases during off-peak hours (e.g., midnight).

Congestion pricing has worked wonders in many places abroad, not just in Stockholm: the number of vehicles on the road typically decrease, travel times increase, road accidents go down, and air quality goes up.

It’s a pity that congestion pricing is not at all part of the government’s Dutertenomics program. Their current strategy of building more roads and bridges is too simplistic and will not necessarily abate congestion (in fact, it may exacerbate it).

Of course, congestion pricing is easier said than done. Although the technology already exists – mainly automatic recognition cameras that can read license plates – its adoption may be hampered by our procurement laws and the lack of a reliable registration system. Are the LTO and LTFRB up to the task?

Congestion pricing may also appear to be regressive or antipoor. But this need not be the case: government can come up with offsetting transfers and keep many alternative roads off congestion pricing. The congestion fees also need not be too high: the drastic 20% decline of congestion in Stockholm was caused by a peak-hour congestion fee of just 2 euros.

Despite the challenges, it’s time for our leaders to seriously consider modern, radical, and tested options like congestion pricing.

Correct the incentives in 2018

Our country’s problem with road congestion is, at its core, a problem of incentives: the right ones are simply not in place.

The solution is fairly simple: correct the existing incentives by reducing the relative benefits of private vehicles and increasing their relative costs.

But these require political courage and focus from the Duterte government, and may require potentially unpopular policies. These include: higher taxes on automobiles and petroleum; resisting the urge to just build new roads; fighting for PUV modernization; and seriously considering congestion pricing.

In all these, I’m not sure what the proposed traffic “emergency powers” entail and how useful they can be.

But if only President Duterte focused on our traffic woes half as much as he talks of the war on drugs or “RevGov,” then – even without emergency powers – we might be that much closer to licking our traffic problems once and for all. – Rappler.com

The author is a PhD candidate at the UP School of Economics. His views are independent of the views of his affiliations. Thanks to RA Siy, a transport economist, and Kevin Mandrilla for valuable comments and suggestions. Follow JC on Twitter: @jcpunongbayan.

Since impeachment is already conceded as a political process, not a judicial one, it should not be too much to ask for some measure of elemental fairness, civility, and magnanimity in its conduct. But then, what chances are there, really, that those simple formalities will be observed in a House of Congress taking orders from a boorish, vengeful, and  autocratic president?

In fact, at the very beginning, the House elected both its majority and its minority leaders from the Duterte camp, denying the tiny, but true, opposition even token recognition; thus was made shamelessly plain the House’s intent to get its business done by sheer force of numbers.

Those are the precise conditions in which Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno has found herself standing accused. She comes under rules that are totally ridiculous. The mother of all those rules says it all: she may be represented by counsel, but the representation ends where justice begins; her lawyers cannot question her accuser or any of the testifiers against her.

The joke does not stop there. It falls to the chairman of the hearing committee himself to deliver the final punchline. He excoriates the accuser for having no “personal knowledge” of the offenses he is alleging (normally a defining requisite) or, in lieu of it, some documentary proof of the tales reaching his ears. The chairman observes that obviously he and his committee are being relied upon by the accuser “to fish” for the evidence. 

Desperate hope of reason and fairness prevailing is thus inspired – until the chairman and his justice committee all the same oblige to go fishing.   

In any case, Sereno has decided to take her chances in the Senate, where, once impeached in the House, she will stand trial and may reasonably expect to be given her day in court, more or less in the proper judicial fashion. True, the Senate is itself a Duterte den, but it labors under a great weight of tradition. Elected nationally, senators answer to a national constituency; they are naturally expected to be more broadminded than their Lower House neighbors who, installed on a parochial vote, tend generally to be, well, parochial-minded.

Moreover, as seems fair enough in a case where one branch of government is called upon to sit in judgment of the leader of another branch, a higher bar is set: a two-thirds vote (16 out of 24) is required to pronounce guilt.

To send the case to trial, the House has to deliver only a third of its vote (99 out of 297). But it’s not rushing; it is in fact going for overkill, in keeping with the character of the Duterte regime. It is dragging out the hearing to send a broad, malignant message to dissenters; at the same time, it is picking its priority targets.  

The Chief Justice is the only one actually being impeached, but two others have been threatened with impeachment. Commission on Elections Chairman Andres Bautista escaped by resigning. But Conchita Carpio Morales, retired Supreme Court justice and now ombudsman, takes her threats as they come, calmly, but certainly not sitting down.  

The latest threat was provoked by the revelation of Duterte family bank accounts her office had turned up in the course of its investigation of charges of unexplained wealth against the president. Replying to the threat, she said her office "shall not be intimidated," then threw back at Duterte a line he liked repeating: "[One who] has nothing to hide...has nothing to fear." He has not been heard repeating it since.

But why pick on Sereno, Bautista, and Morales? One reason is psychological, which is nothing to downplay, given Duterte’s aberration. Although they may be merely expressing their moral and professional convictions, Sereno and Morales possibly make the compulsively overreaching and narcissistic president feel like being put in his place. Another reason is practical, though practical only insofar as it, again, suits his deviant designs.

By voting against Duterte’s pet cases in the Supreme Court, Sereno did not endear herself to him and, chief justice for 14 more years, unless stopped by abnormal means, like impeachment, she could hound him beyond his term. For her part, Morales has set her own hounds off sniffing for anything of his to hide.

As for Bautista, being no Duterte man, he would not make a reliable vote counter for the midterm elections of 2019, when local, provincial, and congressional (including some senatorial) positions will be contested. Since Duterte’s leadership is a closed-ended one – if you’re not for him, then you’re against him – the vote will also serve, indirectly, as a validation of his presidency.

In this respect, ex-President Gloria Arroyo, a chief ally of Duterte’s, should be able to give him firsthand counsel: she herself took no chances; she installed her own vote counter.  – Rappler.com

(To the tune of Carol of the Bells) 

May nag-doorbell, hawak ay papel:
ampao na pula. Kumikinang, mata:
“Ninong’s not here? Ba’t amoy beer?”
Suweldo’y simot, ’Lang maiabot
Niiii-noong?! Niii-nooong?! ’Yun ang tanong. 
Cellphone, nag-ring, ika’y napraning,
iyong kinarir ang pag-disappear.
They’re everywhere, you feel despair.
Shet! Kumalabog! Puso’y kumabog!
Tago, dali, at magkubli!
’La kang datung, di alam ano’ng
ibibigay, sa nag-iingay, 
kundi, “Merry, merry, merry Christmas! 
’Kay lang ba sa ’yo ang medyas?!”

Artwork by Alyssa Arizabal
Text by Nico Villarete

#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.

On a rainy night in July, 23-year-old Alejandro Cajano hailed a motorcycle using the Angkas app to get to his home in Makati. He never made it. The motorcycle figured in a road incident that left him in a coma for two months. He died in September, leaving behind a grieving family and over a million pesos in unpaid hospital bills.

Like Cajano, many Filipinos rely on habal-habals or a motorcylce modified to seat two persons, for transport. Until recently, habal-habals were only known to operate in rural areas to carry people and goods over rough mountain roads, and areas not accessible by public transportation. But the growing prominence of ride-sharing apps like Angkas has mainstreamed the operation of habal-habals in cities. (READ: Angkas passenger in coma after crash: Who's liable?)

Though commonplace, there is no argument that habal-habals are illegal. Section 7(a) of Republic Act No. 4136 or the Land Transportation and Traffic Code clearly prohibits the use of motorcycles for public transport. Unlike Uber and Grab which are now allowed to operate under Department Order No. 2015-011, there is no regulation allowing the use of motorcycles for hire.

Angkas continued to operate despite earlier warnings, in the hopes that the government would give it the same legal status as Uber and Grab. After its shutdown, Angkas ceased operations, but declared its  willingness to be regulated by the Land Transportation Franchising and Regulatory Board (LTFRB), believing its operations to be a safer alternative to the already common habal-habal.

This begs the question: Are habal-habals safe?

Vulnerable to road crash

According to the World Health Organization’s Global Status Report on Road Safety 2015, motorcycles are among the most vulnerable road users, making up 53% of fatal road crashes in the Philippines.

To provide safety, Angkas provides driver training and requires background checks and skills assessment. But the vulnerability of motorcycle riders is not only due to the skill of the driver, but also due to the design of motorcycles and environmental risks.

Motorcycles offer little protection to its riders. They are capable of great speed but unlike 4-wheeled motor vehicles, there is no outer shell, airbag, seat cushion, or seatbelt protecting its driver and passenger from crashes. (READ: IN NUMBERS: Road crash incidents in the Philippines)

Motorcycles are also difficult to maneuver. Like any two-wheeled vehicle, the stability of a motorcycle is relative to its speed. To remain balanced, a motorcycle must run at a certain speed. When it moves slowly, its balance depends on the physical strength of the driver, the ability of the passenger to balance, and the collective weight of the driver and passenger.

A driver can also easily lose control of the motorcycle because of potholes, speedbumps, or wet surfaces. Indeed, in Cajano’s case, environmental factors appeared to have played a role in the crash based on the dash camera footage of the incident. (READ: 6 in 10 injured in road crashes are motorcycle riders)

Given the design and environmental risks, the promise of strict background checks and skills training are not enough to protect passengers from road crashes. (READ: What laws help keep road users safe in the Philippines?)

In fact, in an assessment of the effectiveness of interventions for motorcycle safety, the United States National Highway Traffic and Safety Administration ranked motorcycle licensing and motorcycle rider training low in terms of effect. It noted that there is limited data to conclude that these interventions are effective.

The promise of a fast and convenient ride is also a cause for caution. The data on speed is indisputable – the greater the speed, the greater the risk of a crash and the greater the severity of the resulting injury. This means that delivering on this promise of a fast and convenient ride is likely a compromise on its safety.

Economic cost of road deaths

Angkas’ promise of insurance coverage amounting to P200,000 also does not make up for the economic cost of a road death. As we have seen in Cajano’s case, head injuries can push medical costs to more than a million pesos.

Dr Hilton Lam, who conducted a study estimating the socio-economic cost of road traffic injury, said medical expenses range from P60 to P336,561.

Lam also estimated that about P112,000 per person in annual wages is lost due to death. In Cajano’s case, assuming he would work until the age of retirement, this means P4.704 million in income was lost. (READ: Rappler Talk: Are Philippine roads safer in 2017?)

Cajano’s family was also compelled to file a case to assert Angkas’ liability, adding to their mounting financial losses, because Angkas disowned liability over the driver’s action. 

Though Angkas claimed to have covered the hospital expenses of Cajano in full, Cajano’s father claims otherwise.

The way forward

Given these considerations, should the Department of Transportation (DOTr) and the LTFRB allow and regulate habal-habals?

We have to remember that laws are norm-creating. Allowing habal-habals, even while regulating it, would likely encourage its use. (READ: Why passengers and bikers think Angkas matters)

It is also hard to imagine the policy interventions the government would have to introduce to make habal-habals safe, given that motorcycles, by design, are highly susceptible to environmental risks.

Of course, regulation is not the only option. In rural areas, the habal-habal is seen as a necessary evil because it can navigate unpaved roads and access areas not serviced by public transportation.

Because accessibility is the primary concern in rural areas, the government can, instead of regulating habal-habals, build better roads and provide safer transportation options. (WATCH: Rappler Talk: Solutions to Metro Manila traffic and road safety issues)

Meanwhile, in Metro Manila and Cebu where most roads are paved and various public transportation options are available, accessibility is not the primary issue. Rather, the discussion revolves around convenience and cost. With the worsening traffic situation, commuters demand cheap point-to-point transportation.

Must the government yield to this demand?

The story of Cajano is a cautionary tale. It is tempting to dismiss it as an isolated incident but data on fatal crashes involving motorcycles tells us it is not.

It tells us that the price of the cheap and convenient habal-habal is safety. Sometimes, you pay dearly with your life.– Rappler.com

Rochel S. Bartolay and Sophia Monica V. San Luis are the Communications Officer and Executive Director, respectively, of ImagineLaw. ImagineLaw is a non-profit public interest law organization that aims to foster and promote human development through public policy development and advocacy, research and capacity building. It is currently working in priority areas in public health, particularly in road safety and health data registries. 

In the recent Assembly of State Parties of the International Criminal Court, Harry Roque asserted that the ICC must respect “national proceedings.” In support of his assertion, he stated that there is an intimate link between terrorism and drugs and that there are "ongoing national proceedings involving terrorism and drugs." He further asserted that ICC must resist attempts to use it as a means of political advancement of the political opposition.

But first let us clarify: What is the precise criminal matter being brought and pending before the ICC? To be sure, it is not about terrorism and drug trade. To be sure, terrorism and drug trading are not crimes within the jurisdiction of the ICC. There are only 4 serious international crimes of concern to the international community as a whole, namely; genocide, crimes against humanity, war crimes, and crime of aggression. 

What is pending now in the ICC rather is the matter of the criminal case for crime against humanity through mass murder committed by Duterte arising from his repeated, continuing and unchanging system of death squad killings ever since his Davao Death Squad. As mastermind of this system, Duterte continued and carried it out this system in his war on drugs at the national level.

There is no allegation in the ICC that Duterte engaged in drug trading. Neither is there an information that killings have been made by Duterte in the context of his purported anti-terrorism campaign in connection with drugs in Marawi.

While it may be conceded that drugs and terrorism may be connected, the case against Duterte for mass murder in the ICC is not being made in the context of the connection between drugs and terrorism.

What is being alleged in the ICC is that Duterte created, authored, installed a system of death squad killings as a method of crime control in Davao which he continued in his war on drugs at the national level. The case is for crime against humanity through mass murder in the context of the murderous drug campaign of Duterte.

It is respectfully submitted that under the Rome Statute, complementarity means that the Duterte death squad regime should have conducted and must conduct a national criminal investigation against Duterte himself as mastermind of the system of death squad killings in his war on drugs.

It is precisely the duty of the state through the Duterte death squad regime to conduct such national criminal investigation pursuant to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights and the Rome Status itself. The state has the duty to end impunity.

Up to now, there is no such national criminal investigation against Duterte, despite urgings, requests, or demands from international NGOs like Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch, governments like the European Union, the UN and its agencies like the UN Human Rights Council and others concerned.

More importantly, there is no way that the Duterte death squad regime is willing or able to conduct such national criminal investigation against Duterte himself. As I have repeatedly said, how can that regime conduct such investigation when Duterte himself is the head and mastermind of this big death squad regime?

If what Harry Roque means about "national proceeding" is such national criminal proceeding against Duterte, the question is to be asked: is there or has there been such national criminal investigation against Duterte in the first place? Or will there ever be such investigation? If there has been no, or there is no, such national criminal investigation against Duterte, what is there to respect in the first place?

If what Harry Roque means by "national proceeding" is an investigation against policemen, that will not satisfy the complementarity principle because complementarity requires a national criminal investigation against persons "who bear the greatest criminal responsibility."

It is true there was a Senate investigation, but it was cut short by Duterte's lapdogs in the Senate. It was a cover up to shield Duterte from criminal from responsibility. For how do you explain the utter shameful failure of the Senate lapdogs to push for a national criminal investigation against Duterte?

Complementarity means that when a state party (1) fails to conduct such national criminal investigation, (2) renders the matter "inactive," or (3) enables the ICC to act by way of its action like the Senate cover up – all in order to shield Duterte from criminal responsibility – then the ICC can exercise its complementary jurisdiction, as ruled by the ICC in the early case of Germain Katanga from the Democratic Republic of Congo (DRC).

By way of precedent, the ICC has exercised its complementary jurisdiction in the situations in Kenya, Uganda, and DRC where there is a functioning court system. In the Kenyan situation, it was a crime arising from political violence in an election and the ICC exercised jurisdiction despite a functioning national court.

In the Ugandan case, even if there was a functioning court system, still the ICC acquired jurisdiction, because a previous amnesty meant that no national criminal investigation could be made. In our case, the question must be raised: Can Duterte be prosecuted here with his presidential immunity from suit which is non-existent in the ICC?  It must be here noted that sovereign immunity from suit has been a rejected principle in international criminal law in relation to crime against humanity since the Nuremberg Trial after world war 2.

In the case of the DRC, the crimes were committed in the province of Ituri where the best-functioning courts were located, but the ICC exercised its complementary jurisdiction.

It would have been usual if a certain group committed crime against humanity in Philippine territory, in which case the Philippine government could refer the matter to the ICC just like the situations in Uganda, DRC, and the Central African Republic.

But in our case, it is Duterte himself who is being alleged to be complicit in the crime. The case of Kenya which arose from violence in an election illustrates the mandate of the ICC to intervene even if the criminal case arose from the context of an election which is eminently political.

It is true that Edgar Matobato was presented by Senators Leila de Lima and Antonio Trillanes IV in the Senate. Arthur Lascañas was also presented later by Senator Trillanes. The Senate is a political body which could have pushed for a national criminal investigation against Duterte, but it did not. By and large, albeit not a national criminal investigation, the Senate probe was far from being fair, independent and impartial.

While politics may have a role to play in bringing the matter to the attention of the nation and the world, the criminal case in the ICC is not purely political in nature.  One should not lose sight of the more important consideration that there is a crime committed against the Rome Statute which requires an effective remedy in the ICC, in a national situation where the death squad regime is complicit, does not and will not investigate Duterte himself.

In the ultimate sense, if what Harry Roque means by "national proceedings" is the "war on drugs," it is a laughable assertion, because it is not a "national criminal proceeding" to which the ICC is complementary and which therefore the ICC must respect.  Should the war on drugs be entitled to respect where Duterte’s system of death squad killings is being carried out resulting in thousands of deaths?

Indeed, the drug war is, instead, the precise context that has given rise to mass murder through Duterte's system of death squad killings. Elementary principles of criminal law, both here and in the ICC, should instruct a lawyer worth his salt that such drug war does not justify or excuse the commission of crime against humanity through mass murder being committed repeatedly, unchangingly, and continuously by Duterte.

Respect, instead, for international criminal law demands that Duterte should be brought to international criminal justice in The Hague.

Bring Duterte to The Hague! – Rappler.com

Lawyer Jude Josue L. Sabio filed a mass murder complaint  against President Rodrigo Duterte before the International Criminal Court in The Hague, The Netherlands, in May. He is the lawyer of self-confessed Davao Death Squad hitman Edgar Matobato.

The Department of Finance has described the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (TRAIN) program as the first package of the comprehensive tax to correct several deficiencies in the tax system to make it simpler, fairer, and more efficient. The expectation is that overall, there will be revenue gains from TRAIN which the government can then use for its ambitious infrastructure program. There will be no "Build, Build, Build" unless TRAIN is enacted and tax reform is launched.

This past week, the bicameral conference of the Senate and House of Representatives have been meeting for hours to come to an agreement on their different versions of the tax reform law. It is possible that this weekend or early next week, the two panels will find a consensus and the TRAIN will be approved by both chambers on Monday, December 1,  or any day before Congress adjourns for its Christmas break next week. If it misses this deadline, the TRAIN will be derailed and it could take another few months.

Procedurally, there is of course no question that the House and Senate must both approve TRAIN. The Constitution does provide that tax bills originate from the House but the Senate is allowed to propose amendments while both chambers must eventually agree on the final content of such bills. (READ: How will the proposed tax reform package affect Filipinos?)

According to Senator Sonny Angara, who has done a good job pulling this bill together in the upper house, more than 75 contentious provisions have already been resolved by the bicameral conference. His House counterpart, Dakila Cua, also exudes confidence that this can be done on time.

Knowing the two chairs well as serious, committed, and skilled legislators, with an eye of the big picture, and as a witness to this process, I am also confident. I laud the two panels for their flexibility and hope that they will be able to come up with a final package by next week. Both Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez and Senate President Koko Pimentel have also shown patience and flexibility as the negotiating process continues. (READ: Redirecting TRAIN against inequality)

Among other issues, there is an important, indeed historic opportunity that TRAIN provides if the panels and the Congress makes the right decision – the imposition finally of a coal tax as part of a package of reforming excise taxes. Already, the latter is notoriously low in the Philippines because of the historic influence of the traditional natural resource industries (logging and mining).

But in the case of coal, the government has not imposed an increase in the tax on coal for decades. Even as it is the dirtiest fuel and is being phased out all over the world, coal has been spared the same kind of treatment as other fossil fuels. (READ: From P10 to P300: Senate OKs nearly 3,000% increase in coal tax)

Negligible impact for a coal tax increase

An increase in the coal tax makes sense economically in terms of revenues gained by the government, in terms of its impact on the energy sector and our consumer bills, and in its equity implications as the poor will not bear the burden of such an increase.

It is also good for the environment and climate change as it will help us transition to a cleaner, cheaper, and more sustainable energy system.

From a fiscal point of view, the argument for a coal tax, as for a big increase in the excise on mining taxes, is impeccable. Depending on the final amounts involved, revenues gained from a coal tax range from P25 billion to P75 billion, easing considerably the burden of other sectors.

As Senator Loren Legarda, the champion in the Senate, has repeatedly said, we tax oil, gas, LPG, etc, but not coal. This even as any tax increase on coal, whether the P300-increase proposed by the Senate (imposed in a phased way with P100 on the first year, P200 on the second year, and P300 on the final year) or to even the P600-increase that economists like Ciel Habito have proposed will have a negligible impact on our electricity bills.

It is simply not true as some legislators are claiming that an increase in the tax on coal would impose a burden on certain regions or industries. The Department of Finance has been forthright about this with the scenarios it has provided.

In my view, our electricity bills would likely increase not because of a coal tax but because coal will become more expensive in the years to come relative to renewable energy. To the extent that a coal tax eases us faster into a transition to renewable energy, we will then be better off.

Rise of renewable energy

Despite the naysayers, renewable energy has seen an unprecedented rise in the last decade.

In 2000, wind energy was projected to reach 30 GW by 2010. However, in 2015, that goal was exceeded 14.5 times, bringing global wind capacity to a total of 432 GW. In 2002, it was projected that the solar energy market would grow 1 GW per year by 2010. By that year, that goal was exceeded 17 times. 2015 saw that goal exceeded 58 times, and 2016 will likely exceed that goal once again by 68 times. All in all, global solar capacity grew an average of 59 GW per year in the last decade.

This exponential growth has driven down the costs of renewable energy, with some cities and towns in Germany, Australia, Scotland, and Portugal, among others, running on solar and/or wind energy at little to no cost to consumers. Investments in renewable energy are at an all-time high, and in 2013 clean energy officially surpassed fossil fuels in investment in new generating capacity by almost 100%.

In 2015, global investments in renewable energy were at a record of $329 billion, 30% more than investments the previous year. Renewable energy has officially become the biggest new investment opportunity for the private sector, which accounts for $243 billion globally. (READ: Renewable energy is healthy energy)

Indeed, the future of renewable energy is looking much brighter than what was predicted not 5 years ago. Countries like Chile have had impressive trends in renewable energy – from 11 megawatts of solar panel at the end of 2013,  that number shot up 400% to 402 megawatts a year later, and in 2015 that number almost doubled to 848 megawatts.

Their 2016 numbers look even more astounding: a whopping 10,000 megawatts of solar energy capacity. In Costa Rica, 99% of its electricity came from renewable energy in 2015, and Pakistan is building one of the largest solar facilities in the world, with a capacity to produce over 1,000 megawatts of electricity upon completion. These are only a number of macro manifestations in the impressive global rise of renewable energy. (READ: A low carbon future)

The private sector is not only investing in renewable energy, but it is also removing its investment capital from oil, gas, and coal companies. During the past decade, fossil fuel divestment has become the fastest-growing divestment campaign in history, driven not only by moral reasons, but by financial reasons as well.

The Rockefeller Brothers Fund, for example, divested almost all of its assets from coal and tar sands (amounting to $60 million), and invested even more in "clean energy technologies and other business strategies that advance energy efficiency, decrease dependence on fossil fuels, and mitigate the effects of climate change." Universities, such as Stanford, Oxford, Georgetown, and the University of California system, have also committed to divest from fossil fuel. The current total of educational institutions’ divestment pledges are now at $130 billion.

The public sector has also begun divesting from fossil fuels – the city governments of San Francisco and Washington DC, for example, have divested their pension and retirement funds from fossil fuels. To date, a total of $2.6 trillion in assets have been committed to divest from fossil fuel. If targets and pledges under the Paris Agreement will be met, fossil fuel investments might very well become worthless in the near future.

Coal taxes and energy transition

While the global trends for clean energy are only slated to go up in an almost exponential fashion and more and more countries are shifting to renewable energy, the Philippines seems to be going the opposite direction.

According to data from the Department of Energy, the country will surpass baseload requirements from coal-fired power plants by 2030, with coal energy accounting for 60% of the Philippines’ energy share by the same year. Should the Philippines go against global renewable energy trends, not only will fulfilling the country’s commitment under the Paris Agreement will be a tough challenge, but achieving sustainable development will be a much harder goal to reach.

Under the Paris Agreement, the Philippines committed to reduce 70% of its emissions from energy, transport, waster, industry, and forestry sectors on a conditional basis, which means that the country can only fulfill its commitment with the assistance of financing from developed countries, international climate financing mechanisms such as the Green Climate Fund (GCF), and the private sector. It is an ambitious commitment that was applauded globally, and sets an example for all other nations, both developed and developing, to meet their targets and ratchet-up their pledges in time.

From a strictly legal perspective, this commitment is achievable and is supported by a body of environmental laws that are some of the most progressive in the world. The 1987 Philippine Constitution enshrines the concept of sustainable development, keeping in mind that "the State shall protect and advance the right of the people to a balanced and healthful ecology in accord with the rhythm and harmony of nature." (READ: Environment and climate change: Duterte owns the problems now)

The energy sector, of course, plays an integral part of economic development, and it is the country’s main energy law, the Electric Power Industry Reform Act (EPIRA), that emphasizes the importance of social and environmental compatibility as a component of energy security. The Clean Air Act and the Renewable Energy Act also reinforce support for clean energy in the country. All in all, there is strong legislative foundation for the Philippines to fulfill its commitments under the Paris Agreement.

However, what is good in theory isn’t always what is seen in practice. The current playing field of the Philippine energy sector focuses primarily on meeting the demand for electricity in order to keep what EPIRA describes as a steady supply of "environment-friendly, indigenous, and low-cost sources of energy," in effect prioritizing what is cheap and readily available. The well-established institutional arrangements that are afforded to coal energy makes it the easiest and cheapest way to light up a bulb. Coal energy, therefore, has become the most dominant player in the country’s energy sector. (READ: INFOGRAPHIC: The real cost of coal power)

Because institutions have given preference to a specific energy source in the last few decades, the energy sector rarely takes the social and environmental consequences of energy production into consideration. Even with the advances on pollution control technology, waste and emission by-products of coal-fired power plants result in adverse environmental impacts – pollutants from its smokestacks, wastewater, ash, among others, discharge a significant amount of chemical stressors to the environment such as selenium, mercury, and arsenic.

Coal-fired power plants also cannot function without putting a considerable strain on natural resources, as coal energy requires an exorbitant amount of water to operate its turbines and cool its thermoelectric plants. (READ: Environment groups file case vs DENR, DOE over coal plants proliferation)

Aside from the environmental consequences brought about by its emissions and discharges, coal-fired power plants also have health and social impact that affect the immediate communities around them. The 84 out of 187 hazardous air pollutants that these plants emit cause respiratory, cardiovascular, and neurological health hazards that children and the elderly are most vulnerable to. Countries with fewer and less stringent air pollution standards are even more likely to experience deaths and serious illnesses due to the by-products of coal-fired power plants.

An increase in coal taxes would reverse these anomalies, which is positioning us badly in the future, and help ease the transition to renewable energy and a better – cheaper, more sustainable, climate change and environmentally friendly, and equitable – energy future. – Rappler.com

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

This article is the first in a monthly series written by the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD), an organization of liberal and democratic parties in Asia, to celebrate its upcoming 25th Anniversary in 2018, whose first chairman is the late Dr Surin Pitsuwan, to whom this article is dedicated. 

Almost 25 years ago, when leading Liberals and Democrats around the region decided to establish the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD), there was optimism about the prospects of democratization in Asia. People power in the Philippines and the events of May 1992 in Thailand led many to believe that these countries had seen the last of authoritarianism. Within a few years, liberal and democratic forces were gaining in countries like Indonesia and even in countries where one party rule had been the norm. Globally too, the end of the Cold War seemed to have vindicated liberalism and democracy.

In the ensuing quarter of a century, members of CALD worked together in solidarity, helping to advance liberal and democratic causes in the region. Through seminars, workshops, training programs, exchanges, field trips and public statements, members shared their experiences, best practices, and supported each other to meet the challenges posed by the often-volatile political situations around the region. These contributions, while often unnoticed, were not insignificant. That the organization continues to exist as the only one of its kind in Asia is in itself an achievement. It reflects the fact that liberalism and democracy belong to Asia as much as in other regions. That it now participates and contributes to global platforms, most recently in its contributions to the new Liberal International Manifesto this year, demonstrates its maturity and expanding influence.

Yet all is not well with liberal democracy in Asia, and indeed in many parts of the world. Recent trends and patterns in elections and governance suggest a clear recession, even a reversal in democratic development worldwide, with challenges in the form of authoritarianism and illiberalism fueled by rising sentiments of nationalism and populism, fed on by fear, anger and frustration in reaction to rising inequality and threats of terrorism. Brexit, the US presidential elections and the rise of extremist parties in Europe paint a completely different picture from the triumphs of the free world just over two decades ago.

Here in Asia, when CALD convened its Executive Committee meeting in Bangkok last month, we were extremely concerned about the continuing and intensifying dominance of populism, illiberalism and authoritarianism in many countries in the Asian region. The political situation in Cambodia continues to deteriorate, to the point that the majority of the officials of the main opposition party, now dissolved, had to flee the country, making free and fair elections in 2018 highly unlikely. 

In the Philippines, a democratically elected leader continues to subvert democratic principles and processes to consolidate political power in the Office of the President, not to mention the abuses of basic rights in the war on drugs. Religious extremism and economic protectionism are on the rise in Indonesia, Malaysia and Myanmar, and this impinges on these countries’ ability to foster good governance and democratic consolidation.  The date of Thailand’s elections remains unclear, and there are increasing concerns on the willingness of the military junta to transfer political power to a civilian government.  All throughout Asia, human rights violations are still prevalent, and Liberals and Democrats are still struggling to combat fake news and misinformation as they try to address these issues. Moreover, the abuses of rights and threats to democracy are not only coming from old-style dictatorship, but from popularly elected leaders as well.                                     

CALD is concerned that this growing trend would continue to create a space that constricts political participation and weaken civil and political liberties, thus, further damaging past democratic gains in the region.  We stand against, and shall continue to fight, in a non-violent manner, the threats to democracy that continue to plague the political landscape. 

Yet rather than lamenting the state of the world and placing blame on others, we recognize the need for liberals and democrats to re-assess and re-imagine their priorities in order to tackle the pressing issues of the world today, while retaining the fundamental liberal principles and values which ensure social peace and prosperity. Liberals must go back to the heart of the matter, which is to provide a better quality of life for the people. We believe that focusing on the essential needs of the people and efficiently responding to their pressing issues would pave the way to trust-worthy liberal democratic governments.

We believe that Liberals and Democrats must confront two key factors which have contributed to the decline of liberal democracy. The first is the global economic system. Concentration of wealth and economic power, often accompanied by corrupt political power, have made ordinary people skeptical, if not lose faith, in the democratic process. The unacceptable degree of inequality, an issue close to the hearts of people and one with no market solution, has led many to shun liberalism, especially when they identify liberals and democrats as standing for excessive free market neo-liberalism. The second is that liberals and democrats, once seen as a force for progress, have, in the eyes of the people, become part of an elite establishment, uncaring, irrelevant and sometimes even self-serving.  

CALD has discussed these issues extensively and believe that we need show what liberalism and democracy can offer by getting back to basics. We need to demonstrate that we know what the concerns of people are and offer real solutions, not just abstract principles and ideology to problems that matter to people. Indeed, we should demonstrate that when applied effectively, liberalism and democracy actually offer the best chance of success at tackling people’s problems through the process of participation and representation based on faith in the people. Doing so also means we have to truly practice what we preach. Public trust must be earned by being transparent and effective, as well as being liberal and democratic.

CALD stands by its fundamental belief that liberal and democratic values can provide sustainable, effective remedies to the most pressing issues and concerns that the world confronts today, and that the people would realize that populist policies and authoritarian solutions do not work and actually make social problems worse.  But we need to get back to what we do best, being the force for change and progress. We have no doubt that history would vindicate us in the end, and that the principles of democracy, human rights, a well-managed market economy, and the rule of law are the only pathways to peace, justice, and prosperity.  – Rappler.com 

Abhisit Vejjajiva, former Prime Minister of the Kingdom of Thailand and Democrat Party Leader, currently serves as the Chair of the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD).  

When people are forced to flee war, conflict, and violence, they often leave with nothing but the clothes on their back. While living in displacement, they also lose their ability to earn and spend. (READ: Unspeakable tragedy as Rohingya refugees flee to safety)

As a way of providing protection, the cash-based interventions of the United Nations High Commissioner for Refugees (UNHCR), the UN Refugee Agency, help reduce the risks displaced persons face.

Cash assistance makes them less likely to resort to harmful coping strategies such as survival sex, child labor, family separation, and forced marriage.

I joined the UN Refugee Agency 3 years ago to lead the implementation of the cash assistance program in Lebanon for refugees from Syria, Iraq, Sudan, and other countries.

I was responsible for setting up the program, developing its standard operations procedures, dealing with financial service providers, and coordinating with other agencies to roll out mechanisms to provide cash assistance to refugees.

Prior to joining UNHCR, I have worked in various humanitarian operations in Indonesia, Sudan, Yemen, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Somalia, Ethiopia, Lebanon, Jordan, and the Philippines.

I was recently deployed to Bangladesh to support our emergency operations for hundreds of thousands of Rohingya refugees who have fled conflict and persecution since August 25.

The speed and scale of the influx has resulted in a critical humanitarian emergency. More than 100 days since they were forced to escape to Bangladesh, the Rohingya’s humanitarian needs remain acute. (READ: The Rohingya and the port of last resort)

Urgent action is needed to provide shelter, health, and sanitation facilities, food and clean water, medical assistance, and psychosocial support.

The refugees who arrived in Bangladesh since August came with very few possessions. They have used the majority of their savings on transportation and the construction of their shelter, often out of no more than bamboo and thin plastic.

They are now reliant on humanitarian assistance and other life-saving needs. These are provided through in-kind commodities, although most are available in the local markets.

Serving as Cash-based Intervention Officer, my main role was to gauge the feasibility of using cash as an alternative to in-kind assistance and distribution of core relief items. Part of my job was to work with banks to provide potential payment solutions given the limited infrastructure in the refugee camps.

Restoring hope and dignity 

While it is true that the situation is still at the emergency phase, conditions at Kutupalong refugee camps allow key essential requirements for the implementation of cash-based interventions at a small-scale.

It has a dynamic free-market economy, and many of the refugees’ basic needs such as food, hygiene items, and shelter materials are available from the local market.

Cash assistance thus directly stirs and benefits the local economy by creating a multiplier effect. This also contributes to peaceful coexistence with host communities or countries, refuting the perception that refugees are a burden.

More importantly, access to cash empowers refugees and give them the freedom of choice to address their own needs. (WATCH: Rappler Talk: Atom Araullo shares #GiftofHope to Marawi, Rohingya evacuees)

Back here in Lebanon, every time I sign the payment request for the refugees’ accounts, I feel fulfillment and happiness thinking that tens of thousands of refugees will be able to eat, buy medicine, pay a rent and send their children to school.

Let me tell you a story about Tharwat, one of the 1.8 million refugees in the Middle East. (READ: UN highlights trauma of Syrian refugee children)

Tharwat, who fled the war in Syria, has spent 6 years as a refugee in Lebanon. She has constantly struggled to meet competing needs like putting food on the table and buying medicine for her ill mother.

Through the cash assistance she receives through the UNHCR, Tharwat has regained control over her finances and a corresponding boost to her dignity.

"The money I receive has changed my life. I now have the freedom to buy what I need the most, and that’s my mother’s medication. She would fall very ill without it. For me, food comes second," she shared.

Why Filipinos should care

As Filipinos, we have experienced a lot of hardships in life due to poverty and calamities.

The good thing is Filipinos are resilient. We learn from every mistake, we convert threats to opportunities, and we are able to still give when we ourselves have outstanding needs. Those are our traits.

Despite the hardships that we encounter in our day-to-day life in the Philippines, we are fortunate that Filipinos still have the freedom to enjoy our lives with our families without fear of persecution. (READ: #GiftofHope: Atom Araullo on why Filipinos should care about the Rohingya)

Today, we have the opportunity to demonstrate compassion and give help those who are suffering more than we do – those who are killed and persecuted, those who are forced to flee to save their lives.– Rappler.com

Loreto Palmaera is a Filipino humanitarian worker who hails from Tulunan, Cotabato. Since 2014, he has been serving as the program officer for the cash-based interventions (CBIs) initiative of the UNHCR.

If you would like to support UNHCR’s emergency operations for Rohingya refugees in Bangladesh, share the #GiftofHope today by donating at https://donate.unhcr.ph/rohingya.

On its face, the assertion that RevGov is necessary to facilitate the shift to a federal system of government seems like an attractive radical idea.  But the underlying contradiction really makes such a proposition comical.

It does not make sense at all for us to simply throw our country’s democratic and economic gains away by reverting to authoritarianism, such as RevGov. The real head-scratcher though, is mixing this insane notion with the serious business of federalization.

But given the anaemic public support the RevGov movement received last November 30, Filipinos can now properly wear our thinking hats and intently reflect on the more serious matter of RegGov or regional governance.

Both sides of the federalism debate wholeheartedly agree that the best way to break the domination of Imperial Manila over our nation’s economic development is to establish a robust RegGov framework.

Empowering the regions, both in fiscal and administrative terms, is an undeniable requisite to spur regional development. Designing the specific mechanics of RegGov however, is where this unanimity ends.

RegGov without Cha-Cha

There is merit to the proposal of simply improving the present RegGov framework as opposed to the federalism movement’s push for a complete overhaul of the entire system of government. The former does not require the revision of the 1987 Constitution, whereas undertaking Charter-Change (Cha-Cha) is necessary for the latter.

The fact is the current administrative organization of the regions means that there are already working institutional offices ready to carry out any new mandates. Doing this will be relatively easier and perfunctory because they already enjoy familiarity amongst communities within their respective territorial jurisdictions.

More importantly, historical data concerning demographics and other pertinent economic indicators within the regions are already on hand. Hence, to simply institute improvements covering fiscal distribution and administrative devolution would arguably be more practical and logical than a total re-design of the current RegGov framework.

It must be noted that implementing substantive RegGov reforms is sanctioned under Article X of the present charter. Either through legislation under Sections 3 and 13 or by executive fiat under Section 14.

Cha-Cha without RegGov

But there is credence as well with pushing for comprehensive improvements to be cemented in a new constitution. Moreover, some necessary reforms require constitutional amendment. For instance, the regulation of local dynasties.

Note however that the critical difference here is that the enhanced RegGov framework must be self-evident in the national charter itself. Meaning, the realization of meaningful regional autonomy must occur when the new constitution is ratified in the plebiscite.

If an enabling law is needed to devolve powers and functions to the RegGov apparatus, then this is not really an improvement to the current structure. Case in point is the draft charter proposed by the PDP-Laban.

In their draft, the devolution of fiscal and political powers to the regional level government will only happen if the envisioned Federal Assembly enacts a Regional Local Government Code. Obviously, this merely copies the decentralization procedure found in the present charter.

Alarmingly, pending the passage of such a law, the country will be ruled by an even bigger and more complex Imperial Manila because executive authority will be shared by a still powerful President as the head of state and an equally influential Prime Minister as the head of government.

The closest to a proper RegGov framework is in the draft charter of former Senate President Nene Pimentel. Here he elevates the current administrative regions to the status of constituent states in the envisaged federal republic.

Notably, the grand old stateman would also say that the allocation of fiscal and political powers between the two levels of government in his draft can still be refined. But his trademark humility also indicates that a robust RegGov framework is still not automatically assured in the Cha-Cha process.

Two paths to RegGov

Filipinos must remember that the goal is to break the monopoly of Imperial Manila on economic policy decisions impacting the entire Philippines. Hence, the ultimate reform objective we must have in mind is to establish a RegGov framework which can facilitate and maintain economic prosperity in the regions.

There are two paths to attain this aspiration. One is through Cha-Cha whilst the other is through purposeful legislation only. As responsible citizens, it is incumbent upon all of us to delve deep into each of these options.

With regards to the federalism project, it is worthy to note that the House of Representatives is now in full Cha-Cha mode. The chairperson of this chamber’s committee on constitutional amendments, Southern Leyte Rep. Roger Mercado, anticipates this process to formally commence on January 2018.

Curiously, the Senate has not made any such commitment at all. Hence, as to whether Cha-Cha will really push through next year, remains to be seen. But understanding the mechanics of the constitutional revision process is still an absolute must for all Filipinos. We must not allow a “pre-ordained” draft charter to be forced on us like the 1973 Constitution was, and end up suffering under a constitutional dictatorship all over again.

On the other hand, the respective committees on local governments of the Senate and the House are presently focused on passing the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL). This is fortuitous because the BBL is an example of a robust RegGov framework. Hence, the hearings to be conducted by these committees in the coming weeks can produce insights which can form the basis of legislation to improve the current decentralization structure.

Notably, the Senate committee, chaired by Senator Sonny Angara, is also in the midst of a comprehensive review of the Local Government Code of 1991. Therefore, there is already an active venue where the appropriate legislative reforms to improve the existing RegGov framework can be pursued.

It cannot be overemphasized enough that our ultimate task now is to determine which option will effectively diffuse the over-concentration of power and wealth in the National Capital Region.  There are practical considerations for sure. The political context will be a huge factor, no doubt. But there is no room for compromise. Neither can we afford to waste time with inanities such as RevGov.

For our sakes, and for the future generations of Filipinos, we must determine now which path will finally break the chokehold of Imperial Manila over the rest of the country. – Rappler.com

War continues to rage in paradise.

It is a war waged from ridge to reef where bullets and bombs constantly rain on rural villages standing in the way of big mining operations, plantations, and other destructive projects over the past century.  

This war of suppression, directed at people who resist what government armed forces call "vital installations" and "flagship projects," has always been the biggest investment guarantee that the Philippine government grants to extractive and pollutive large-scale industries.

Atrocities in Andap Valley

In the thick forest corridors of the 58,000-hectare Andap Valley Complex in Lianga, the Lumad communities have fiercely resisted the entry of coal mines and other extractives since the 1980s.

The decades of defiance have been continuously met with brutal militarization.

Their leaders, including Emerito Samarca, executive director of Lumad school ALCADEV, have been killed by military and paramilitary troops. They have been repeatedly forced to evacuate their homes because of these brazen attacks. (READ: Manobo leader faces murder raps over Lumad killings) 

At present, at least 1,177 Lumad people and another 406 Lumad students and 59 parateachers are staying in different evacuation camps in the province because of the combat operations of the 75th Infantry Battalion of the Philippine Army.

Notoriously involved in the 2015 Lianga massacre of Samarca and Lumad leaders Dionel Campos and Datu Juvello Sinzo, the 75th IBPA has also imposed a continuing food and economic blockade to prevent aid from reaching the displaced communities.

Killing Kasibu’s livelihood

Meanwhile, the town of Kasibu, Nueva Vizcaya, known for its old growth forests and fertile lands that helped the province earn its title of "Citrus Capital in the Philippines," continues to suffer from the destructive operations of Australian-Canadian mining giant Oceanagold.

Since acquiring the 14,871-hectare mining tenement in 2006, Oceanagold has caused the violent demolition of over 200 homes, the continuing exposure to pollution of hundreds more that remain around its mining tenement, and various other human rights violations affecting indigenous peoples in Ifugao.

Heightened military operations in September 2017 has caused the forced evacuation of an estimated 133 families from anti-mining communities in Kasibu. Soon after, 5 local leaders and members of people’s organizations opposing Oceanagold, including a minor, were illegally arrested and filed with non-bailable charges.

Harrowing Hamilo Coast

Hiding behind the veneer of ecological sustainability, luxurious ecotourism sites such as the 5,900-hectare Hamilo Coast project of SM Prime Holdings are "greenwashing" over the displacement of thousands of small fisherfolk and farmers who originally subsisted from the natural wonders provided by the Verde Island Passage, the global "center of the center" of marine biodiversity. 

Hamilo Coast spans the towns of Maragondon, Cavite, and Nasugbu, Batangas covering natural coves, pristine beaches, marine protected areas, forests, and breath-taking rock formations.

It was acquired by SM’s big business consortium through its purchase of the 8,650-hectare Hacienda Looc estate from the national government, gobbling up more than 200 hectares of land previously distributed to agrarian reform beneficiaries.

The communities have struggled against these land grabs since the late 1990s. Numerous fisherfolk have been charged with harassment suits.

Their leaders, William Castillano and Lorenzo Obrado, have been illegally arrested and continue to languish in prison since 2014. Meanwhile, the threat of violent demolition hangs over the homes of 357 families in Patungan Cove, Maragondon, that insist on their right to continue their century-old practice of subsistence fishing.

Deadlier under Duterte

Filipino environmental defenders have been besieged by rights violations under the framework of the past and present counter-insurgency programs. In the provinces where armed revolt is being waged distinctly from the civilian protest movements against destructive projects and other social issues, the national government has perilously refused to differentiate between the two.

This has become even more pronounced under the current regime of President Rodrigo Duterte. In just over a year under Duterte, at least 33 environmental defenders have been killed, 240 have been slapped with harassment lawsuits, and over 17,500 people have been forcibly displaced because of their resistance to destructive projects.

An alarming 73% of the monitored killings were perpetrated by suspected and confirmed military, paramilitary, and police elements. Big mining and plantation projects are involved in the overwhelming majority of these cases, affecting indigenous peoples and farmers.

Defend environmental defenders

In response to this worsening impunity, a landmark statement initiated by environment and human rights coalition EARTH, which was co-signed by 116 non-government organizations hailing from 25 countries, was released to assert that “it is not a crime to defend the environment,” demanding that their fellow environmental defenders be allowed to “freely speak out and take action.”

The groups challenged the Duterte government to “immediately free all remaining 24 illegally detained environmental defenders from prison, and drop all 230 trumped-up charges still lodged against environmental defenders.”

They also urged Duterte to stop the killings of environmental defenders and bring the perpetrators to justice.

EARTH conveners brought the momentum of this global stand for the environment and human rights to the broad protest mobilizations on December 10, the world’s commemoration of the International Day of Human Rights, together with other anti-tyranny forces at the Bonifacio Shrine. (IN PHOTOS: On Human Rights Day, groups urge Filipinos to fight tyranny)

It is in these dark days when the return of dictatorship seems most imminent when the light of democracy, freedom, and justice must burn brightest.  – Rappler.com

Leon Dulce is the campaign coordinator of the Kalikasan People’s Network for the Environment (Kalikasan PNE). Kalikasan PNE serves as the secretariat of the Environmental Advocates against Repression and Tyranny in Defense of Human Rights (EARTH), a broad coalition united to expose and oppose the human rights violations under the Duterte Administration.

Like a sports team before a big game, we clasp our hands and bow our heads in prayer – except we are in the middle of the sea, and are surrounded by sweaty boatmen.  

Captain Ricardo Reynaldo finishes his prayer and gestures to the water, strangely calm this morning.

“The Tañon Strait is famous for its dolphins and whales. Each has its own personality:  bottlenose dolphins stay near the shallows, while acrobatic spinner dolphins ply open waters. Larger Risso’s dolphins like to float upside down, tails sticking out of the water – but the rarest creature of all is the pygmy sperm whale. It is very shy and only passes through our waters. It has been 3 months since I saw one. But perhaps,” he smiled.

“Someone down there heard our prayers," he added. 

Aboard the M/B Ezrha, our sea-squad sails from Bais to the center of the Tañon Strait to come face-to-face with dolphins.

The pod

Thirty minutes on, we are swapping tales and eating breakfast on the boat, eyes occasionally scanning the horizon for our quarry. I am talking with a Marine Corps officer about his adventures in Mindanao when the grizzled boat Captain points to a seemingly empty patch of sea, abuzz with red-necked phalaropes. “There! Look at the birds!”

A league off, blue water begins to churn under the circling phalaropes. In seconds half-a-dozen people are scrambling for their SLRs and compact cameras. Breakfast is swiftly forgotten.

Our boat approaches the site – a roiling, bubbling mass, seabirds squawking overhead. “It is a bait-ball, a giant school of sardines or other small fish driven up from the depths,” explained one of our boatmen. By its fringes I note dark, triangular dorsal fins. Dolphins. And dozens of them!

 Suddenly, they start jumping. Ooohs and Ahhhs fill the air – along with claps and cheers. I grin as I catch myself clapping along with everyone else. I have been watching dolphins for years and it is like this every time.

Whales and dolphins of the Philippines

Cetaceans include about 90 species of whales, dolphins and porpoises. They’re mammals – not fish. About 30 cetacean species inhabit or pass through Philippine waters, ranging from the 2.5-meter Irrawaddy dolphin to the 30-meter blue whale. The Tañon Strait, a 161-kilometer channel dividing Cebu and Negros, is home to 14 types of cetaceans, most of which can be seen around Bais City, a quaint coastal town near Dumaguete in Negros Oriental.

“Cetaceans are extremely important for the marine ecosystem,” says Marine Wildlife Watch of the Philippines Director Dr. AA Yaptinchay.

“Most are apex or top-level predators which regulate populations of fish and squid – thereby keeping the ecosystem balanced to promote diversity. The bigger whales, especially filter-feeders, contribute to nutrient distribution in the sea through a ‘whale pump’ – thereby fertilizing the sea surface with their poop, which encourages plankton growth.”

AA and his Marine Wildlife Watch of the Philippines crew have been working to conserve cetaceans and other charismatic species for years.

Once hunted and slaughtered for their meat and blubber, all cetaceans are now protected in the Philippines by the amended Fisheries Code. Still, many die because of accidental entanglement in fishing gear, which can cause the air-breathing mammals to suffocate or drown. Known as bycatch, this causes the deaths of over 300,000 whales, dolphins and porpoises globally every year. Other threats include marine debris and plastic pollution, habitat destruction, overfishing and hunting, which sadly still occurs in remote parts of the country.

“Charismatic creatures like dolphins bring in millions of Pesos from ecotourism, enriching the lives of the people of Bais and other coastal areas. Together with our allies, we work to conserve fisheries in the Tañon Strait by looking at the no-nonsense implementation of our fisheries and environmental laws to protect marine ecosystems and resources.

This ensures that our beloved dolphins will always have food to eat, while protecting the livelihoods of our coastal residents. When done right, tourism is solid proof that many animals are worth more alive than dead,” noted Atty. Gloria Estenzo-Ramos, head of Oceana in the Philippines.  

A special treat

Back on the boat, we observe the Tañon Strait’s stars in action. They’re spinner dolphins, distinguished by their elongated snouts and crazy, acrobatic leaps. Some sommersault, some do lay-outs and some – just to show off – do complicated corkscrews, spinning thrice before landing. They’re best viewed here – in the wild, which is much not comparable to animals performing and suffering in captive entertainment facilities.

After a few frenzied minutes, Captain Reynaldo shouts the three words we’ve been waiting for all morning. “Pygmy sperm whales!”

Drawn to the commotion, a pair have come to snap up what the dolphins have missed. We don’t approach, staying the prescribed 100 meters from larger whales. I snap shots as fast as I can but they’re too far out.

Remembering my favorite scene from Walter Mitty, I exhale and, reluctantly at first, lower my camera. I take in the moment and realize that often, the best life memories should be recorded with one’s eyes, not a lens. After a magical minute, they’re gone.   

Soon more boats arrive and we head back to Bais to let other visitors enjoy. Captain Reynaldo unleashes the coup-de-grace – cold drinks and watermelons. Frozen watermelons. We laugh and dive in. As the dolphins and whales have their breakfast, so do we. – Rappler.com

Multi-awarded environmentalist Gregg Yan is the Director for Communications of Oceana Philippines. He is a Master SCUBA diver, a Reefcheck Eco-Diver and is absolutely in love with the natural world.

Please read before you ride! Check out the Marine Wildlife Watch of the Philippines’ rules for interacting with cetaceans here. To see the dolphins of Bais, contact Ricky Soler of Bais City Dolphin Watching Adventures at: Ezrha2012@Gmail.com

The Senate and the House of Representatives will be conducting separate hearings this week on the dengue vaccines that the government administered on hundreds of thousands of grade school students in 2016. 

After courting them for the first year of his administration, President Duterte has now declared the Maoist Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) and its armed wing, the New People’s Army (NPA), terrorist organizations.

His declaration is unfortunate. Not only does it formalize the end of peace talks that could have ended a 50-year-old insurgency – the longest standing Maoist rebellion in the world – it also augurs violence. This regime is nothing but bloodthirsty and the label terrorist can trigger repression reminiscent of the butcher Jovito Palparan.

My position on the CPP is centrist. On the one hand, I view the CPP as a dictatorial organization that directly threatens our liberal democracy. On the other, I do not believe in counter-insurgency methods that violate human rights. I also believe that members of communist front organizations like Bayan Muna and Gabriela should not be the targets of military operations, while maintaining that they should be tagged as CPP fronts, the better to inform voters who elect them to the legislature.

As with any centrist position, my views court disagreement from opposing sides. The Communists don’t like being called anti-democratic, and they don’t like their fronts being exposed (they say people like me expose their fronts to the military and therefore abet violence – a stupid position since the military already knows which groups are fronts). Meanwhile, the hardline anti-Communists think I’m soft on the Reds.

As a liberal, I believe in struggling to find the golden mean, and a responsible, rights-based anti-Communism is one such mean. Anti-Communism, like many other ideologies has corrupt manifestations. In America, they witnessed the witch-hunts of Senator Joseph McCarthy. In the Philippines, we saw Ferdinand Marcos use the Communist bogeyman as an excuse to destroy our democracy and murder student activists. How do we condemn a violent ideology without replicating their violence?

A responsible anti-Communism must begin with clear definitions. Not all socialists and not all Marxists are capital C Communists. Small c communism is a philosophical position best summarized by Marx’s adage, “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”

Capital C Communism refers to the view, articulated by Lenin and his Bolshevik Party, that a socialist revolution is best led by a vanguard party of professional revolutionaries. This party would serve as the most advanced representation of worker rights and would therefore usher in Marx’s “dictatorship of the proletariat.” The belief in the supremacy of a single party explains why Communist parties in power tend to create one-party states (the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, etc.). Communism is inherently authoritarian.

Communism is also bloodthirsty. After all, it was Lenin and not Duterte, who said: “Without mercy, without sparing, we will kill our enemies in scores of hundreds. Let them be thousands; let them drown themselves in their own blood.”

Like Duterte, Lenin made good in his promise. The latest historical scholarship shows, for instance, that in 1920 alone, Lenin’s regime executed 50,000 Tsarist soldiers and allies. Lenin also established gulags – brutal forced labor camps, which under Stalin, would house more prisoners than Hitler’s concentration camps. The earliest prisoners of the gulags, according to historian Anne Applebaum, were not capitalists or monarchists, but moderate socialists who criticized Bolshevik tactics.

Partisans of the CPP often label moderate socialists “revisionists”, who have dangerously altered the spirit of socialist politics. But they forget that, prior to Lenin, socialism had had a relatively peaceful record. In 1920, shocked by the bloodlust of the Bolsheviks, the French socialist Leon Blum declared that for the “first time in the history of socialism”, systematic violence was used “not merely a final recourse, not an extreme measure of public safety to be imposed on bourgeois resistance, not as a vital necessity for revolution, but as a means of government.”

Under Joseph Stalin, the terror expanded through a series of show trials and public executions. Uncle Joe imposed quotas on the number of executions per region. In the Sverdlovsk region alone, the quota of state enemies to be shot was 75,950.

Similar atrocities happened in China. With the opening of Chinese archives we now know that Mao Zedong – the Asian Stalin and the patron saint of our domestic commies – facilitated the execution and torture of two to 3 million of his people from 1958 to 1962 alone. Not to mention the others who died because of famine induced by the Great Helmsman’s coercive collectivization of agriculture.

In its glorification of violence and disdain for liberal democracy, Communism was similar to another extreme ideology of the 20^th century: Nazism. Though their political goals were different, they shared common tactics and dispositions. Hitler himself acknowledged the similarities when he wrote: “I have always made allowance for this circumstance, and given orders that former Communists are to be admitted to the party at once. The petit bourgeois Social Democrat and the trade-union boss will never make a National Socialist, but the Communist always will.” It was the ideological resonances between Nazism and Communism that allowed Stalin to justify an alliance with Hitler early in the Second World War.

Why is this history relevant in our assessment of the CPP? Because this party draws inspiration from the Communist pantheon of mass murderers. They are officially a Leninist and Maoist organization, and, regarding Stalin, they believe that his “merits within his own period of leadership are principal and his demerits are secondary”. I used to get demerits in grade school, but they were not for genocide and mass incarceration.

Communist sympathizers often tell me that the faults of Lenin, Stalin, and Mao are not those of the CPP, and that our domestic Commies may still learn from the mistakes of their forebears. But this is like saying we should go easy on Neo-Nazis because they have yet to bring about a second holocaust. The fact is: Communism-inspired great atrocities, and we should treat these as warnings.

For those who think that our Commies are immune from the kind of paranoia that led to the tortures and executions under Stalin, I suggest you read Bobby Garcia’s classic book on the CPP purges, To Suffer Thy Comrades. And there is an entire history of NPA troops targeting peasants from rival mass organizations that is waiting to be written.

It is the moral obligation of the historian in the Philippines to speak about Communism’s bloody history, especially since many idealistic students, farmers, workers, and indigenous people are willing to sacrifice their lives for this cause. But the obligation to speak out against Communism must come in tandem with a humanism that recognizes the rights and even morality of those who fight under the red banner. To dehumanize them, to treat them like terrorists that deserve extermination, makes us sink to the level of the bloody dictators they idolize.

When we say human rights are universal, this means we defend the human rights even of those whom we despise. – 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.

Duterte is the only president who has everyone, including his supporters, asking how much longer he’s going to be around. I understand why. Duterte is so unstable, so unpredictable, he’s doing so much damage that people hope he will be gone soon. I would love to be proven wrong, but it is likely he will tread water until 2022.

Duterte’s signature campaign, his drug war, is drawing more and more opposition. The Integrated Bar of the Philippines, a 50,000-strong lawyers organization recently signed an agreement with the Commission on Human Rights to provide free legal assistance to victims of the government’s drug war. The Solicitor General is being raked over the coals in the Supreme Court.

Duterte himself is the main enemy of his drug war. I’m not sure what organ his mouth is connected to, for sure not his brain. During the election campaign, he said he would solve the drug problem in 3-6 months. Then he asked for a year because he did not realize so many policemen were into drugs. Later he said it’s impossible to solve the problem within his term. Now it’s back to one year.

Implementation is disorganized because Duterte can’t make up his mind. When public opposition spiked because of the murders of several teenagers, he transferred the campaign to the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Then he fired Dangerous Drugs Board (DDB) chief Dionisio Santiago because he was offended by Santiago’s criticism of his drugs policy. Then he moved leadership in the drug campaign back to the PNP. Back in February 2017, the same thing happened.

His other major initiative, the peace process, is also a mess. The MILF process is moving forward mainly because the MILF is playing a careful and determined game. The BBL, an Aquino administration initiative, could get approved by Congress next year. Talks with the National Democratic Front (NDF) is at a standstill, with Duterte declaring the Communist Party of the Philippines-NDF-New People's Army (CPP-NDF-NPA) terrorist organizations, ordering the arrest of bailed CPP leaders, issuing shoot-to-kill orders. No more talks, he’s had enough of the CPP, Duterte says.

But wait. After more than two weeks of steady attacks, Duterte now says this was just a “cooling off” period after intense “disagreements". The CPP, for its part, has signaled willingness to continue, even declaring a Christmas unilateral ceasefire. The talks will probably resume, but Duterte himself is open about having to clear everything with the military.

Duterte seems to think that going from one extreme to another on policy options has no effect on implementation. How can you follow a leader if you can’t believe what he says because he might change his mind tomorrow or next week? How can you take initiative in your work when you might offend Duterte and get fired?

Yet another administration initiative, the impeachment of Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno is looking more and more forced, the longer the hearings in the House justice committee continue. The committee’s decision that complainant Larry Gadon had “personal knowledge” to justify the approval of the complaint as being sufficient in “form and substance” is looking more and more ridiculous the longer Gadon faces questions by committee members.

Some committee members have pointed out that it is the justice committee that is doing the work of Gadon. Even if the House leadership forces a plenary vote that sends the complaint to the Senate, House prosecution lawyers will have a hard time defending the impeachment complaint. Unlike in the House where Sereno lawyers were not allowed to cross examine witnesses, this cannot be done in an impeachment trial. It is unlikely that they will get enough votes to convict.

Polarization

The Duterte administration’s frustration with its inability to have its way is driving it to attack its imagined enemies more and more. Other than the SC chief justice, the Ombudsman is also being targeted for impeachment. More and more cases are being filed against Aquino administration people. They are actually doing a favor to the Liberal Party because easy identification of critics as “Yellowtards” is driving more and more people to the party.

There are no organized “destabilization” plots that I know of. But the administration is so unsure of itself that it sees “destabilization” behind every criticism. It’s not the Liberal Party, or the Church hierarchy, or the Ombudsman, or the Commission on Human Rights which stand in the way of Duterte’s plans. If I were him, I would worry that his strongest critics – Senators Leila de Lima and Risa Hontiveros, Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, Omsbudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales, Vice President Leni Robredo –  are all women.

To avoid these critics, to get rid of these obstacles, Duterte and his people have two projects: federalism/charter change and “revolutionary government”. Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez and Senate President Koko Pimentel have reportedly agreed to convene the two houses of Congress into a constituent assembly as early as January 2018. The PDP has submitted a set of proposed amendments which are supposed  to guide the process.

Paradoxically, the proposals for shifting from a unitary to a federal form of government, the core of the Duterte and Pimentel advocacy for years, is unclear. What is laid out in detail is a proposal for a presidential/parliamentary form of government. The president would retain a lot of power – Duterte’s French model? The Senate becomes a weak second house. The center of gravity will be a powerful “federal assembly”.

Presumably to secure the support of the existing House of Representatives, all single member districts, and political clan-controlled party-list groups will be retained, the latter through a system of proportional representation at the regional level. The Prime Minister and a majority of cabinet ministers will be members, all the easier then to negotiate pork barrel. And no Senate to compete with.

Since this proposal is unlikely to get the required three-fourths vote in the Senate, they will try to get the Supreme Court to rule that the House and Senate should vote in joint session. Thus the need to impeach CJ Sereno. If this fails, then “revolutionary government”! Duterte will abolish Congress and the Supreme Court, all pesky media, and rule by decree. With one minor condition, he will need the military to enable him to rule as dictator, Marcos-style.

In a pointed political message, the Secretary of National Defense and the AFP chief-of-staff said they are opposed to a “revolutionary government”. More pointed still, they said it in a press conference together with Vice President Leni Robredo. By the time Duterte and his people had organized nationwide demonstrations in support of a “revolutionary government”, Duterte himself had already been forced to retreat and say he does not really support the idea.

Four-and-a-half more years of Duterte is an interminable, insufferable length of time. His regime is wreaking havoc on many political institutions, especially the weakest of our 3 branches of government, the judicial system. The legal contortions that the solicitor general and the justice secretary are going through to keep Senator De Lima in jail is making it hard for law schools. How do you teach law when the top law officers of the regime do not respect it?

The circus in the House justice committee on the Sereno impeachment is undermining the Supreme Court. I am not a lawyer, but I have not heard anything that sounds like “culpable violation of the Constitution”. What is happening is that petty jealousies among justices and disagreements on administrative matters are being dragged before the public eye, taking away the majesty and power that secret deliberations enforce.  

Filipinos are used to terrible political conditions. It takes a long time (14 years of Marcos!) and a lot of converging events before we say “Tama Na, Sobra Na” (Enough Already). The analyst in me says “get used to four-and-a-half more years”. But can you blame me for wishful thinking? – Rappler.com

Joel Rocamora is a political analyst and a seasoned civil society leader. An activist-scholar, he finished his PhD in Politics, Asian Studies, and International Relations in Cornell University, and had been the head of the Institute for Popular Democracy, the Transnational Institute, the Akbayan Citizens’ Action Party, and member to a number of non-governmental organizations. From the parliament of the streets, he crossed over to the government and joined Aquino's Cabinet as the Lead Convenor of the National Anti-Poverty Commission.

What is currently taking place is a counterrevolution that seeks to destroy the nation’s restored democracy and replace it with an authoritarian regime that would work for the political redemption of the Marcos family and return to power. President Rodrigo Duterte leads the counterrevolution. He is being aided by two groups – those of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos and former president Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

The counterrevolution has been initially launched as an anti-drug campaign in the 2016 presidential elections. Since then, it has expanded to include assaults on its democratic institutions, including the Supreme Court, Commission on Human Rights, and Office of the Ombudsman. It seeks to weaken democratic traditions too, including the adherence to human rights, rule of law, and due process.

The intention is to destroy the gains of the 1986 EDSA People Power Revolution that toppled the Marcos dictatorship and its 2001 sequel, where the military withdrew support from then president Joseph Estrada, leading him to resign the presidency. The immediate objective is to prove that the two revolutions have been failures to improve Philippine society and only the reinstitution of a populist, albeit authoritarian, regime could save the country.

The political goal is to reinstall a new dictatorship, enabling Duterte, or his envisioned successor, Ferdinand “Bongbong” Marcos Jr, to rule beyond his term in 2022. They want to revise history to favor the Marcoses.

The coalition of authoritarian forces composed of Duterte, the Marcoses, and Arroyo are pursuing their counterrevolution through two political routes: declaring a revolutionary government, or RevGov, to jettison the 1987 Constitution; or amending the Constitution to change the presidential system by a parliamentary system and replace the unitary form of government by a federal system.

Mr Duterte intends to establish a RevGov because it appears to be the way to discard the 1987 Constitution, which serves as the anchor of the 30 years of restored democracy. The democratic ideals and traditions embodied in the 1987 Constitution have tied his hands, frustrating his attempts to cut corners.

But he is not gaining ground. Major sectors, including the dominant Roman Catholic Church, the defense and military establishment, and the business sector have been sending cold signals, virtually rejecting his RevGov in favor of restored democracy.

The November 30 nationwide show of force by the authoritarian groups was a dismal failure. Several rallies were held in major cities, but they attracted only a handful of participants. They hardly created any impression in the national consciousness.

Conflicting themes

Two conflicting themes dominate the Philippine postwar experience: democracy and authoritarianism. This dichotomy of political themes is evident over the past 7 decades. Pro-democracy forces want the democratic institutions and structures to thrive and the democratic processes to flourish. They believe in pluralism, where various belief systems, world views, and advocacy have spaces for coexistence and growth.

Pro-democracy forces are represented by middle elements that supported two people power revolutions (EDSA 1 and EDSA 2), political parties and organizations adhering to rule of law, and institutions like Majority Church, or the Roman Catholic Church, and Minority Church, or Christian and non-Christian denominations, their clergy, and various Church-based organizations. They are dubbed as the “Yellow Forces” since they helped to catapult Corazon and Benigno Aquino III into the presidency.

The authoritarian forces live in the past, as shown by persistence to revise history, treat the two people power uprisings (EDSA 1 and EDSA 2) as historical flukes, and re-impose the failed authoritarian system. The modern-day populism appears to be their ideological anchor.

Mr Duterte’s remarks, showing a heavy tilt toward the suspension of the writ of habeas corpus, declaration of martial law – either in Mindanao or nationwide, and the establishment of RevGov, have fanned widespread anxiety and fear about a return of authoritarianism. Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana, showing unprecedented independence, has said the Armed Forces of the Philippines would not support his RevGov.

Although Philippine postwar liberal democratic system was put in place in 1946, Ferdinand Marcos, elected popularly in 1965 and reelected in 1969, touched the nerve of history by declaring martial law on September 21, 1972, plunging the country into a political experiment on “constitutional authoritarianism” or dictatorship. He was to step down on December 30, 1973, but he prolonged his stay in power by taking advantage of a loophole in the 1935 Constitution.

By a stroke of a pen, Marcos wrote finis to the country’s democratic traditions and destroyed its democratic structures. He abolished Congress, closed down mass media outfits, arrested and jailed without charges tens of thousands of journalists, activists, labor and peasant leaders, religious workers, and opposition stalwarts. He invoked the national security doctrine for martial rule, saying he wanted “to save” the country from the “conspiracy of the oligarchs and the communist rebels.”

After declaring Martial Law in 1972, Marcos ruled for another 13 years, but brought the following: first, centralized corruption, where he earned under-the-table commissions from big ticket state projects and deposited proceeds in foreign banks; second, crony capitalism, where his cronies cornered fat state projects, formed agricultural monopolies, and grabbed monopoly contracts in the services sector; and third, wanton human rights violations, where tens of thousands of anti-Marcos elements were arrested and imprisoned without charges, tortured, and summarily executed, and disappeared involuntarily without trace.

In 1986, the Filipino people, in their exercise of sovereign power, kicked the Marcoses out of Malacañang, toppled his dictatorship, and sent them to a 5-year exile in the US. But it happened not without leaving a country destroyed by their kleptocracy, or the use of power to plunder and accumulate ill-gotten wealth estimated at between $5 billion to $10 billion.

Democratic agenda

Although the counterrevolution has hardly gained ground due to the constitutional provisions providing iron-clad guarantees to prevent future political adventure in authoritarianism, the country’s pro-democracy forces have to move fast and assume a democratic agenda to prevent the Duterte counterrevolution from succeeding.

For instance, they could press for the impeachment, resignation, or ouster of Duterte, whose bloody regime has claimed the lives of thousands of victims in extrajudicial killings (EJKs). They could press for his prosecution before the International Criminal Court, where a suit of crimes against humanity has been lodged against Duterte and 10 others. Or they could continue fighting against the assaults on democratic institutions.

For instance, pro-democracy forces have bonded to help and defend Supreme Court Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, the junior magistrate, whom then president Benigno Aquino Jr named to lead the judiciary. She faces an impeachment suit perceived to have been concocted by the trio of Mr Duterte, the Marcoses, and Arroyo. There are indications she could weather it because the charges are weak.

Ousting Mr Duterte is not complete. The post-Duterte era requires a democratic agenda to erase authoritarianism. For instance, pro-democracy forces could press the creation of a new commission to investigate those EJKs, identify the culprits, and recommend their criminal prosecution. They could redirect the anti-drug war to complete adherence to the rule of law and due process. They could work for the reeducation of law enforcement agencies on democratic ideals.

The post-Duterte government could pursue a diplomacy offensive to regain support of allies like the US and European Union and press for a redirection of foreign policy to acknowledge, adhere, and implement those international and bilateral agreements, to which the Philippines is a signatory, and other binding decisions by international bodies. They could work for an economic diplomacy offensive too.

Moreover, it could reinstitute the anticorruption campaign of the Aquino administration and reimpose the anticorruption ideals sidelined by the focus on the anti-drug war. They could likewise work to erase all vestiges of authoritarianism.

Probably the most important is a common but sustained initiative of the pro-democracy forces to “demarcosify” Philippine society by explaining to the Filipino people the Marcos legacy, which includes massive human rights violations, crony capitalism, and massive plunder of the national coffers. – Rappler.com

Philip M. Lustre Jr is a freelance journalist. He specializes in economic and political journalism.

Last week, Congress passed House Bill 6617 on its third and final reading. This will amend and modernize the existing HIV/AIDS Prevention Act that was passed in 1998 and bring it up to speed to reflect the nuances of today’s HIV epidemic. (READ: House improves bill to improve PH's HIV, AIDS policy)

I could give you a list of reasons why this bill is a step in the right direction in working towards curbing the country’s skyrocketing HIV infection rates. Instead, I will tell you about some of the people this bill will help and how its provisions can save lives and improve the quality of life of those living with HIV.

Lowering the age of consent for voluntary HIV testing to 15

Rey was 17 when he went for his first HIV test. His mother went with him. Under the current HIV law, Rey would not be given an HIV test because he is a minor without parental consent.

There aren’t a lot of teens like Rey who feel comfortable talking to their parents about getting an HIV test. The prospect of being hammered with questions about their sexuality and possible reprimand are enough to make most teens buckle.

When Rey shared his experience with me, he said that he was too shy to buy condoms and didn’t really know enough about them. “In a way, getting HIV was inevitable,” he said.  

HB 6617 allows for a minor between 15-17 to give his own consent to undergo a voluntary HIV test. It is based on the rationale of the “mature minor doctrine” and “evolving capacities of a child” meaning that with proper information and guidance, 15-17-year-olds can make autonomous choices about their health like getting an HIV test.

In cases where the minor is below 15 or medically incapacitated, consent must be obtained from a parent or legal guardian. In the absence of a parent or guardian, the bill allows a licensed social worker or health worker to give consent. This is based on the worker’s assessment of the minor’s risk exposure to HIV. Additionally, the bill says that any person below 15, who is married, pregnant or in high-risk behavior should be considered a mature minor and be eligible to given consent for HIV testing.

The provision on immunity from suit protects healthcare professionals from being sued for delivering HIV prevention services that are in the interest of the minor.

Government data shows that most newly reported HIV infections are among 15-24-year-old males. These adjustments on the age of consent are adapted to various situations minors may find themselves in. The line about teen mothers is specifically important given our climbing teen pregnancy rates.

Overall, the bill respects the decision-making capabilities of young people. It makes it easier for them to get an HIV test. Early HIV testing means early diagnosis and early treatment through anti-retroviral therapy (ART). And that means saving lives.

Prevention of vertical transmission

Vertical transmission of HIV is the transmission of the virus from an HIV-infected mother to her child during pregnancy, labor and delivery, or breastfeeding.

When Scarlet was pregnant with their second child, she didn’t think anything about the HIV test that the clinic suggested she take as part of her pre-natal exams. She was shocked when she tested reactive, which meant that she was positive for HIV. Her husband, Robert, a person who injects drugs (PWID), had promised her that he would stop using drugs. Scarlet had no idea about HIV and never thought that she would be at risk getting it.

A report by the Joint United Nations Programme on HIV/AIDS (UNAIDS) revealed that more than 90% of the 1.7 million women living with HIV in Asia are like Scarlet; they acquired the virus from boyfriends or husbands they were in long-term relationships with. These women likely did not engage in risky behavior but because their partners did, they were put at risk.

The provision on preventing vertical transmission will allow clinics to offer HIV testing to expectant mothers as part of their pre-natal exams. Early diagnosis is crucial to preventing mother-to-child transmission of HIV. Expectant mothers who test positive can be put on anti-retroviral therapy. Interventions like this can reduce the risk of transmission of HIV to her unborn child to below 5%.

Bullying

The bill defines bullying as “any severe or repeated use by one or more persons of a written, verbal or electronic expression, or a physical act or gesture”, including social media and online reports and categorizes it as a discriminatory act. It also includes “name calling based on a person’s actual or perceived HIV status”.

Using one’s HIV status to shame a person is categorically defined as discriminatory.

This will help prevent the fate suffered by the 11 men who were arrested in a drug raid in Bonifacio Global City (BGC) last month. The news of their arrest turned into open season on social media. Their personal details were shared and the men were labeled all sorts of vicious names.

Confidentiality

The bill cites as unlawful the disclosure of one’s HIV status by anyone working in the delivery of HIV services and anyone who may have access to personal data in the workplace (example: Human Resources).

This strengthens the earlier provisions in the 1998 law that prohibits termination from the workplace on the basis of one’s HIV status. It will also ensure that the workplace is one that is a safe and secure environment free from discrimination.

It will offer additional protection for people like Renato Nocos, a hairstylist at a Ricky Reyes salon, who was terminated after he disclosed his HIV status to his employers.

Nocos filed a case of unlawful termination against the salon in 2015 and won.

There is a separate clause on confidentiality that prevents the media from disclosing one’s HIV status without the prior written consent of the individual. This should compel better and more responsible reporting on the part of media about HIV cases.

There are many other provisions in HB 6617 that give our existing HIV law the 2.0 upgrade that it needs. 

Read more about HB 6617 here.

Push the Upper House to pass Senate Bill 1390,  the counterpart bill of HB 6617, which was authored by Senator Risa Hontiveros so we can finally have an HIV law that will usher in concrete policies that are adapted to addressing the gaps in HIV prevention. – Rappler.com

Fast economic growth to the tune of 6-7% is impressive and beneficial for the country. After all, it ultimately means higher incomes for many Filipinos.

But this doesn’t mean everyone’s benefitting from growth the same way. In fact, these growth figures are nearly meaningless for the poor – what matters more to them is that they have a job and that prices do not rise fast.

In this article we look at objective and subjective measures of Filipinos’ economic hardship in the time of Duterte. All in all, the numbers don’t look too good. By focusing too much on growth, we risk overlooking the plight of many Filipinos whose boats have not been lifted by the rising economic tide.

Misery index

Few economic statistics impact people’s lives as directly as the inflation rate and the unemployment rate.

Inflation simply refers to how fast the prices of commonly-bought items are rising. Higher inflation (a faster rise of prices) eats away at the purchasing power of every peso we earn.

Meanwhile, unemployment measures how many people are without work, but available for work and seeking work. Unemployment brings not just lost incomes, but also much stress and uncertainty.

When both inflation and unemployment go up, people can feel more miserable in economic terms. This is why their sum is sometimes called the “misery index”, coined by American economist Arthur Okun in the 1970s.

How does the misery index look like for the Philippines? Figure 1 shows that the misery index has been going down since late 2014. But it has picked up recently: on a year-on-year basis, the misery index has been increasing in the 5 consecutive quarters since President Duterte came into office.

Figure 1.

This uptick is due more to higher inflation than unemployment. But the latest jobs data are no less troubling: in October 2017 (not included in the graph) there were 134,000 fewer employed Filipinos from last year, owing to the 1.43 million jobs lost in the agricultural sector. What happened to all of them?

There are, of course, other ways to compute the misery index. One might want to give more weight to inflation than unemployment, or vice-versa. One might also want to focus on the inflation rate experience of the poorest 30% of households, who are more sensitive to food inflation than anyone else.

Figure 2 summarizes these alternative measures of the misery index. Regardless of their differences, all of them display the same recent uptick since the start of the Duterte administration. (Some argue that underemployment may be a better gauge of job misery. If we use this in the misery index instead, things won’t look as bad.)

Figure 2.

Regardless of the precise definition, there’s reason to believe the misery index will keep rising in the coming months due to higher expected inflation. Factors include: robust economic growth; the rollout of the government’s “Build, Build, Build” program; and the implementation of the tax reform law, which features (necessarily) higher taxes on petroleum, automobiles, and tobacco.

The think tank Nomura already expects inflation in 2018 to exceed the government’s target of 2-4%. The IMF also warned earlier that the economy risks “overheating” due to strong credit growth, and this could manifest in higher inflation.

There’s a silver lining, though. Basic macroeconomics tells us there’s a short-run tradeoff between inflation and unemployment: robust economic growth might increase inflation (due to higher demand for goods and services) but it may also reduce unemployment (because of the new opportunities it brings).

If this tradeoff holds, then higher future inflation might be counteracted by lower future unemployment. But economists worldwide are finding weaker evidence of this short-run tradeoff. How the Philippine misery index will play out in the future is therefore hard to predict.

Self-rated poverty, hunger

Yet another way of quantifying economic hardship is by looking at how people perceive their own poverty and hunger. Their limits notwithstanding, such subjective measures of welfare are an important social barometer that complement official poverty and hunger statistics (which are harder to come by).

Figure 3 shows the self-rated poverty and hunger statistics since 2014. Both have declining long-run trends, but in September 2017 there has been a recent uptick for both: 47% for poverty, 11.8% for hunger.

Figure 3.

These data immediately put the Palace on the defensive, and they blamed higher inflation and the peso’s depreciation. For once, this is not an unreasonable explanation coming from them: the peso’s depreciation increases the prices of imported goods (say, petroleum products), and this feeds directly into domestic inflation.

Unfazed, Palace spokesperson Harry Roque said, “It is for this reason that while the administration is building a strong and sustainable domestic economy, growth must be inclusive and must be translated to a more comfortable life for all.”

But a more comforting message would’ve been to say what exactly the government plans to do to mitigate the impact of higher expected inflation.

Consumer confidence

Finally, we look at consumer confidence statistics collected quarterly by the Bangko Sentral. Respondents are asked to rate their optimism and pessimism about the economy and their household finances at present, in the next quarter, and in the next year. Consumer confidence is, roughly put, the degree to which optimists outnumber pessimists.

Overall consumer confidence in October 2017 was registered at 9.5%, lower than last quarter’s 10.2%. Figure 4 below shows the changes in the overall trends. As one can see, there was a spike in consumer confidence around the time President Duterte came into office, but this has since dwindled.

Figure 4.

Respondents in the fourth quarter said they were less optimistic due to: “higher prices of goods and household expenditures” and “peace and order problems (particularly, extrajudicial killings, drug issues and crisis in Marawi).”

This is one manifestation of the economic spillovers of President Duterte’s prized policies on peace and order. In many instances we’ve seen the police and military perpetrate violence and lawlessness themselves, often to little or no consequence. Unless this culture of impunity changes, people’s anxieties about peace and order will only worsen and erode their remaining confidence in the economy.

Don’t overlook people’s hardships

All these numbers hardly paint the entire picture of economic hardship today.

We haven’t talked about the drug war’s catastrophic death toll and its impact on poor families left behind. We haven’t talked about the Marawi crisis and the unintended consequences of martial law in Mindanao. We haven’t talked about the scourge of road congestion throughout the nation, which costs us enormous stress and billions of pesos daily.

Economic woes, if unabated, could lead to social unrest. Recall that it was not so much Ninoy Aquino’s assassination in 1983 that led to EDSA 1, but the deep, painful recession in 1984 to 1985 that preceded it.

We’re far from an economic crisis of that scale. But the Duterte government will do well not to overlook signs of Filipinos’ economic hardships today. Government might just regret it. – Rappler.com

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