2017 is the year when technology and government challenged our values and humanity. 

In the name of public safety in the Philippines, we accepted and cheered for the daily killings in the drug war. In the virtual world, we attacked and ridiculed each other, fomenting hate and violence. Liberal democracy as we knew it was turned upside down. 

We weren’t alone.

Around the world, the foundation of other democracies crumbled as voters elected leaders who turned away from the protection of fundamental rights and freedoms like in Turkey, Egypt, and Venezuela. In Myanmar, elections may have helped fuel violence against the Rohingya as populist politicians make a scapegoat of minorities.

In Europe, the growth of the far right heralded the collapse of mainstream parties such as those in France, Germany, and the Netherlands. In the US, the Democratic party is struggling to recover from its loss. In the Philippines, the Liberal Party is largely decimated.

Elections of leaders like Trump and Duterte immediately changed policies on climate change, migration, human rights, and the South China Sea.

Technology hit a tipping point and transformed global power structures. At its core: the exponential spread of information on social media.

It was a perfect storm in the Philippines: the failure of elite politics to deliver democracy’s promise coupled with cheap armies on social media, which replaced facts with emotions and created alternative realities.

How it happened

Moore’s law, that the amount of computing power on a chip doubles every 18 months, was always behind every innovation and industry disruption, from Google to Airbnb to Uber.

In 2017, social media and networking technologies took globalization and the information revolution one step further, erasing boundaries of nation states, and hitting societal fracture lines around the world.

Terrorist groups like ISIS, also known as IS or the Islamic State, had effectively used social media for asymmetrical warfare and recruitment as early as 2013, winning the propaganda war against much more powerful countries armed with expensive weaponry.

Now more than ever, information equals power. Whoever controls the public narrative wins the war.

2017 formalized a global shift from controlling the internet through censorship to flooding social networks with hundreds of millions of social media messages with a clear goal: to tear down trust in traditional institutions of power.

This gives new life to information warfare tactics from the Cold War era.

Roots in Russian disinformation

“Disinformation works like cocaine,” said Yuri Andropov, former Russian KGB chairman and former general secretary of the Communist Party of the Soviet Union. “If you sniff once or twice, it may not change your life. If you use it every day, though, it will make you into an addict – a different man.”

2017 shattered the idea that social media can empower people, instead becoming a tool for authoritarian governments and despots around the world to roll back democracy. (READ: 30 countries use 'armies of opinion shapers' to manipulate democracy – report)

We saw its roots in Russia’s political information warfare in the Ukraine in 2014. Three years later, the US Congress is investigating Russia’s role in its presidential elections, where social media distributed “fake news” to tear down Hillary Clinton, allegedly paving the way for the victory of Donald Trump. (WATCH:Zuckerberg under fire for Facebook's deal with Rodrigo Duterte)

Facebook, where 67% of Americans get their news, said political ads from Russia “appeared to focus on amplifying divisive social and political messages.” Analysts compared that with the Russian military doctrine on information warfare  to fuel “the protest potential of the population.”

In 2017, social media splintered the public space essential for democracy.

Algorithms bad for democracy?

Technology platforms are the new gatekeepers, but they’re not impartial arbiters of truth. They are capitalist enterprises designed to make money from their users. Instead of human professionals armed with standards and ethics, machines programmed with algorithms of popularity create mob rule. 

Facebook, where nearly 97% of Filipinos on the internet get their news, uses algorithms based on the principle of homophily, or like attracts like. The more you click, the more you get, reinforcing your prejudices and exacerbating hatred, deeply polarizing our society in ways we never thought possible.

These algorithms work well for engagement for the platform, but they also shape what we see and how we see the world. Facebook's commenting and moderation policies also strip protections given to journalists by the Philippine and US Constitutions, creating the Fourth Estate.

As Maria Ressa said when Rappler received the Democracy award last month, “We are seeing free speech used as an excuse for posts that incite hate and violence deployed against journalists, activists, and anyone perceived to be critical of government. The excuse of free speech is being used to stifle free speech.” (READ: What happens when the government uses Facebook as a weapon?)

What can we do?

The first step is to understand our new world today. This is the reason why Rappler maintains a database of Facebook accounts based on impact and scale. These fact-based, data-based analysis form the foundation of our stories on social media and the propaganda machine. The data shows us that no effective counter-narrative or distribution network has scaled like the pro-Duterte networks on Facebook. 

The second step is to curate your own news. Be self-aware. We may not all agree on what they mean, but let’s agree on the facts. Anchor your views on facts.

A third, medium-term step is media literacy. Join groups to fact-check. Tell your friends and family and avoid sharing anything you haven’t verified.

Fourth, choose and support at least one news organization. While the platforms control the distribution of news, journalists remain the ground-zero of facts. We thank all of you who joined the first crowdfunding campaign for news in the Philippines.

Finally, we at Rappler appeal to the technology platforms to assess and act quickly to make their algorithms friendlier to democracy, especially in more vulnerable, emerging democracies around the world.

2017 has brought many surprises, but like Alice traveling through Wonderland, we hope 2018 brings us out of the rabbit hole.

Happy New Year! – Rappler.com

As the Year of the Monkey gave way to the Year of the Rooster a year ago, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte certainly had something to crow about in 2016.  We had awarded Duterte the "big winner" of the "best year in Asia" distinction on CNN  for disrupting the state of affairs – for good and for bad – at home and abroad.  

Malacañang took note.  Then presidential spokesperson Ernesto Abella in a media briefing said, "It's heartening to know that...certain media agencies are able to notice the good things the President is doing." Clarifications later followed that it was us writers, and not CNN, that had awarded the distinction. 

With the arrival of 2018, we look back at what made headlines and, fitting in this day, what lit up Facebook and Twitter in Asia in 2017.  This year, we draw from the concept of yin and yang – the Chinese philosophy of seemingly opposite but interdependent forces – as we up-end tradition and name joint “winners” of Asia’s bad to good. 

In 2016, the worst year went to the “U.S. pivot to Asia” as presidential candidates from Hillary Clinton to an ultimately victorious Donald Trump, made clear that Barack Obama’s’ Trans-Pacific Partnership trade deal would not stand. In 2017, who was up and who was down? We took this year to Fox News to review the year that was, and found Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-Un following in Duterte's footsteps, so to speak. 

Malacañang, once again, take note. 

Worst Year: Aung San Suu Kyi and the Rohingya people – a falling star and a failing response

Myanmar’s then opposition leader and democracy icon Aung San Suu Kyi's fall from grace began in 2013. The Nobel Peace Laureate did little to speak up against the persecution of the Muslim Rohingya minority as she kept her eyes on the prize of leading her majority Buddhist nation.

By the end of 2017, her fall may well be complete, with more than 600,000 Rohingya having now fled into Bangladesh following rapes, murders and the burning of their villages.  Whether a “humanitarian and human rights nightmare,” as described by the UN Secretary General, or a clear case of “ethnic cleansing,” the world has failed to effectively respond to Myanmar’s brutal treatment of an entire people.

Unfortunately, the year ahead doesn’t yet look any better for Suu Kyi or the Rohingya – sadly, the joint “winners” of worst year in Asia 2017. 

Bad Year: The Opposition – fading fast 

Across Asia 2017, it was not to be a year of an “Asia Spring” as incumbent leaders and parties in South, Southeast, and East Asia solidified their lock on power, from India to Japan.  Opposition parties had it bad in the year that was. 

One-party rule continued in China with renewed vengeance, as in Vietnam and Laos. And in Cambodia, the dissolving this November of the only credible major opposition party may well help ensure the reign of Hun Sen as the world’s longest serving prime minister continues for some time. 

Elsewhere, Thailand’s return to democracy remains on hold 3 years after a May 2014 coup. And in Japan, Prime Minister Shinzo Abe’s party scored impressive election results, swamping the nascent party of popular Tokyo mayor Yuriko Koike. Incumbency does have its advantages.

A mixed year at best: ASEAN – an unfolding midlife crisis

2017 proved both good and bad for the 10-member Association of Southeast Asia Nations, whose 50th anniversary celebrations in November in Manila included a visit by US President Trump and a seemingly budding bromance between the US and Filipino presidents.

The Southeast Asian region, with a combined GDP of $2.4 trillion, is now the 7th largest economy in the world and on track to become the  4th largest economy by 2050. That’s the good news.

But, 2017 also made clear that the association’s non-confrontational, consensus-building approach, deemed the “ASEAN Way,” may well be facing a mid-life crisis as the region’s embrace of Chinese investment continues. As ASEAN celebrated, some of the region’s most pressing problems, including the Rohingya crisis and territorial disputes in the South China Sea, continued to fester if not grow. 

Good year: Asia’s fintech pioneers – bringing digital disruption to finance

Not everyone can be a Jack Ma, the storied Chinese billionaire and co-founder of Alibaba Group, nor can every company be an Ant Financial Services Group, the Alibaba-affiliated payments company described by The Economist as “the world’s most valuable fintech firm.

But 2017 proved to be a good year for Asia’s pioneers in fintech – a catch-all buzzword for the financial technology that is challenging and reshaping mainstream banking and finance companies – as ecommerce went increasingly mainstream, attracting both consumers and investors.

In third quarter 2017 alone, according to consulting firm KPMG, Asia was the global leader in fintech investment, outpacing Europe and the Americas, with more than $1.21 billion raised. The majority of that investment went to China, including $220 million to Chinese peer-to-peer lender Dianrong. 

And with companies like Alibaba, JD Finance, Tencent and others looking to serve the region’s “unbanked” – only 27% of Southeast Asia’s 600 million people have a bank account – what was a good year for fintech is likely to only get better.

Best Year: Xi Jinping and Kim Jong-Un – best frenemies 

"Best Year" in Asia goes to the leaders of the most populous nation, China, and arguably the region’s most frightening, North Korea. In China, Xi Jinping solidified his rule as his nation’s most powerful leader in decades as this year’s Communist Party congress elevated the one-time Fujian governor to the same level of Mao Zedong, and enshrined "Xi Jinping thought" into the party’s constitution.  

2017 also saw progress on two landmark Xi initiatives – the "One Belt One Road" or “new Silk Road” development program to better link Chinese investment and products to key markets, and the Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank, a Chinese-led rival to the World Bank and Asian Development Bank.

The major uncertainty in 2017 for Xi Jinping was the behavior of the man dubbed "Little Rocket Man" by Trump – North Korea's President Kim Jong-Un.  With China the primary ally and trading partner of North Korea, Kim's continued survival may well rest on China's support more so than his nuclear arsenal.  Kim is likely to know that an erratic North Korea is the price that China accepts for fear of a united, democratic Korea on its borders.  

And so, in a year that saw Xi Jinping emerge as a voice for Chinese-style globalization and Kim Jong Un survive, if not thrive, as a nuclear-armed provocateur, this less-than-dynamic duo linked on the world stage follows Duterte with the distinction, dubious or not, of "Best Year in Asia": Xi and Kim, frenemies 2017. – Rappler.com

Curtis S. Chin, a former US ambassador to the Asian Development Bank, is managing director of advisory firm RiverPeak Group, LLC. Jose B. Collazo is a Southeast Asia analyst and an associate at RiverPeak Group. Follow Curtis on Twitter: @CurtisSChin and Jose: @JoseBCollazo. 

Let’s go straight to the point. The much ballyhooed entry of a third player in the local telecommunications industry by March, 2018 is a brutal joke. It’s easier said than done.

The third telco player would have to hurdle several regulatory matters and corporate issues before it could compete with the duopoly of the Philippine Long Distance Telephone Company (PLDT) Group and Globe Telecommunications Group.

The corporate and regulatory processes could take at least 3 years, not 3 months, before the 3rd telco player could initiate operations, penetrate the local market, go full blast, and compete.

The corporate and regulatory issues do not include the national security dimensions of the third telco player’s entry. The national security issues appear complicated and multidimensional. Defense officials are in a better position to explain them.

What should be pointed out is that President Rodrigo Duterte could have been grossly, albeit indecently, misinformed when he made a public statement ensuring the entry of the third telco player by March this year and warning antagonistic parties from filing injunction suits to stop its entry.

Local firm 

The first issue the prospective third telco player has to hurdle is the constitutional provision limiting foreign equity to only 40% of the total equity of public utility firms, which include telecommunications. The 60% of equity has to go to the local partner, making it the majority.

China Telecom, which the President has identified as the likely 3rd player, could not just enter the Philippine market, set up the infrastructure, and operate like a favored party without violating the 1987 Constitution. Ergo, China Telecom cannot operate as a wholly owned Chinese firm. Hence, it has to enter into a joint venture agreement with a local group to form a new firm, which will become the 3rd telco player.

Two groups have appeared on the horizon as likely partner of China Telecom, which, according to Duterte, has shown inordinate interest to enter the Philippine market: the Buddy Zamora group, which has acquired PT&T, a local firm*; and the Manny Villar group, which has acquired a telecommunications franchise from Congress, but has yet to form a telecommunications firm.

But going into a joint venture accord is a messy enterprise; they are not putting up a retail, or sari-sari, store. They are creating a behemoth firm to compete with two big telecommunications conglomerates: PLDT and Globe Telecom groups.

Forming a joint venture firm would take at least 6 months; it could go and drag for a year or two, as in most big firms. China Telecom and its local partner would have to conduct due diligence studies; each party has to determine the fitness of the other party as a joint venture partner.

Each party has to study their corporate and financial standing, prestige, technical and technological competence, and other legal, technical, and financial issues before any joint venture deal is sealed. Each has to look into the other party’s financial statements and corporate history.

Each party cannot afford to have a half-baked joint venture pact. Otherwise, this is something bound to fail. Forming a joint venture firm alone could consume the two parties the entire 2018.

Regulatory issues

Still, the newly formed joint venture firm could not just enter the local market and operate. It has to undergo the regulatory processes. The National Telecommunications Commission (NTC) is a quasi judicial body that has the plenary powers to determine the fitness of the 3rd telco player.

Republic Act 7925, or the Public Telecommunications Act of 1995, mandates the NTC to be the chief state agency dealing with the local telecommunications industry. Under the law, the NTC enjoys enormous powers as a regulatory body, as it is empowered to ensure a healthy and competitive environment and interconnection among telecommunications companies.

Even the Department of Information and Communications Technology (DICT), or any other state agency, could not interfere in its regulatory functions. The DICT merely monitors the NTC.

The Supreme Court’s decision in the Gamboa v. Teves case defines the foreign equity requirements under Section 11 of Article 12 of the 1987 Constitution to mean that 40% foreign equity in a public utility firm refers to common, or voting, stocks, not preferred, or non-voting stocks, or a mixture of common and preferred shares

Hence, foreign firms could not just circumvent what could be regarded as restrictive foreign equity requirement in every public utility firm.

Regulatory body

The NTC, as the regulatory body, would have to determine the fitness, capacity, and capability of the 3rd telco player to provide the myriad of telephony services and universal access to its potential subscribers. It has to know if the 3rd telco player has the financial muscle and technological knowhow to lay out the infrastructure and compete in the open market.

Moreover, the NTC would have to evaluate its plans and programs for the Philippine market and see if the 3rd telco player’s investments would go a long way to sustain a healthy and competitive domestic telecommunications industry. It has to evaluate its pre-feasibility and feasibility studies, its detail engineering works, and final plan and program to enter the market.

The NTC, given its history and technical knowhow, has to make the final decision on its entry. But the regulatory processes usually take time because they involve having to look into the intricacies and details of the 3rd player’s operations. Otherwise, the 3rd telco would end up a flop in the market.

Or the 3rd player would likely end up selling its assets to any of the existing duopoly and in the process strengthen the duopoly, which is not the ultimate aim of putting up a 3rd telco player in a market of 100 million Filipinos.

The President, on the other hand, could not impose his will to allow its entry without the NTC doing its job of fully examining its financial and technological fitness of the 3rd telco player. Aside from the usual legal issues arising from those presidential intrusions, the 3rd player would find itself in a tight legal fix if ever it chooses to cut corners and bamboozle its entry.  

In the end, its forced entry would do more harm than good. It has no choice but to follow the usual regulatory processes and practices. Its own legitimacy would rest a great deal on doing its entry in the most legal ways.

Infrastructure works

Even if the 3rd telecom firm passes the NTC regulatory processes, it would take another year or two to lay down the basic infrastructures. For instance, putting up a wireless telephone service is not easy. The 3rd player has to put up those cell sites to actualize wireless telephone service.

Over the past 20 years, the duopoly of PLDT and Globe Telecom Groups has put up nearly 20,000 cell sites nationwide. This number is almost a quarter of the 75,000 cell sites, which Thailand now has.

Seeking permits from local government units (LGUs) to put up those cell sites is always a nightmare even for the duopoly. They have to cajole those officials of LGUs, including the 5th and 6th class municipalities’.  In brief, the third teleco player would have to pass through the proverbial eye of a needle before it could set up the network.

This is not the end. The 3rd telco player would have to recruit the best and brightest among the local corps of telecommunications professionals. It has to employ outstanding financial and technical guys, who could run the firm. Getting the wrong guys is like flushing the money in the toilet.

The foreign partner could not just bring in foreign talents because the 1987 Constitution prohibits their employment. How the 3rd player would compete using the local pool of talents would be a spectacle. It does not happen easily.

In brief, it would take 3-4 years before the 3rd telco player could operate, go into the market, and compete. The Duterte administration would be lucky to have it toward the end of its term. Hitting the market by 2022 or 2023 is a safe prediction. – Rappler.com

*Disclosure: Zamora, Bitanga, and his son Miguel were named the new directors of PT&T last August 18, 2017. Miguel Bitanga is a co-owner of Dolphin Fire Group, an investment house owned by Menlo Capital Corporation. Dolphin Fire has a stake in Rappler.

As we celebrated the New Year, the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (Train) Law or Republic Act No 10963 took effect on January 1, 2018. Train overhauls the outdated National Internal Revenue Code (NIRC) which was adopted 20 years ago.

As a tax lawyer, I noticed that there are a lot of news reports on the changes. But actually, there are much more significant changes under the Train law which are not being reported. 

Train relatively decreases the tax on personal income, estate, and donation. However, it also increases the tax on certain passive incomes, documents (documentary stamp tax) as well as excise tax on petroleum products, minerals, automobiles, and cigarettes.

The Train law also imposes new taxes in the form of excise tax on sweetened beverages and non-essential services (invasive cosmetic procedures) and removes the tax exemption of Lotto and other PCSO winnings amounting to more than P10,000.

Nonetheless, the new law also contains praiseworthy provisions which aim to simplify tax compliance. 

Reduced taxes

Personal Income Tax

The most popular part of the Train law is the reduction of personal income tax of a majority of individual taxpayers. Prior to the enactment of the new law, an individual employee or self-employed taxpayer would normally have to pay income tax at the rate of 5% to 32%, depending on one's bracket.

Under Train, an individual with a taxable income of P250,000 or less will now be exempt from income tax. Those with a taxable income of above P250,000 will be subject to the rate of 20% to 35% effective 2018, and 15% to 35% effective 2023. Moreover, the deductible 13th month pay and other benefits are now higher at P90,000 compared to P82,000 under the old law. 

The table shows the comparison of the brackets and tax rates under the NIRC and Train:

Another innovation under Train is the option of self-employed individuals and/or professionals whose gross sales or receipts do not exceed P3,000,000 to avail of an 8% tax on gross sales or gross receipts in excess of P250,000, in lieu of the graduated income tax rates. 

It is not being highlighted, however, that some items that were previously deducted to arrive at taxable income had been removed under Train. These are the personal exemption of P50,000, additional exemption of P25,000 per dependent child, and the premium for health and hospitalization insurance of P2,400 per year. 

Estate Tax

The estate tax rate was also changed from 5% to 32% of the net estate to a flat rate of 6%. Additionally, the following deductions allowed in computing the net estate (to be subjected to estate tax) were increased:

Donor’s tax

The donor’s tax rate was also amended to a single rate of 6% regardless of the relationship between the donor and the donee. In the old law, the rates of donor’s tax were 2% to 15% if the donor and donee are related, and 30% if otherwise. However, the donation of real property is now subject to Documentary Stamp Tax of P15 for every P1,000. 

Value Added Tax

There are also amendments to VAT which lessen the burden of taxpayers:

1. Increase of VAT threshold from P1,919,500 to P3,000,000
2. Starting 2019, the sale of drugs and medicines for diabetes, high cholesterol, and hypertension will be exempt from VAT
3. Increase of VAT exemption for lease of a residential unit from P12,800 to P15,000
4. Association dues, membership fees, and other assessments and charges collected by homeowners associations and condominium corporations are now expressly VAT exempt

Increased taxes

Passive Income

Train imposes higher taxes on some passive incomes, including interest income from dollar and other foreign currency deposits.

There is also a significant increase in the tax on sale of shares of stocks. 

Excise Tax

Train imposes higher excise taxes on cigarettes, manufactured oils (petroleum products), mineral products and automobiles.

Cigarettes

Manufactured oils and other products

Mineral products

Automobiles

Hybrid vehicles shall be subject to 50% of the applicable excise tax rates. But purely electric vehicles and pick-ups shall be exempt from excise tax.

Documentary Stamp Tax

Unlike the House of Representatives’ version of Train wherein no change was introduced on the rates of Documentary Stamp Taxes (DST), Train increases the DST on almost all taxable documents. 

New taxes

Aside from increase and decrease of certain taxes, Train also introduces new taxes in the form of excise tax on sweetened beverages and non-essential services.

Sweetened Beverages

Non-essential services

Invasive cosmetic procedures directed solely towards improving, altering, or enhancing the patient’s appearance is now subject to excise tax of 5%.

PCSO winnings

Previously, PCSO winnings, regardless of amount, were exempt from tax. Train subjects PCSO winnings to a 20% final withholding tax if the amount is more than P10,000.

Simplified tax compliance

Apparently, the Philippine tax system is a very complicated one. This was certainly considered by Congress when it enacted the Train law. Consequently, Train introduces amendments which are geared towards simpler tax compliance. Some of these amendments are:

1. The Income Tax Returns shall not be more than 4 pages
2. The Tax Return for final and creditable withholding taxes shall be filed quarterly instead of monthly
3. With regard to estate tax, the following measures were adopted to simplify its computation and payment:

• In lieu of actual funeral expenses (up to P200,000) and medical expenses (up to P500,000), Train increases the standard deduction (wherein no substantiation is required) from P1,000,000 to P5,000,000
• Notice of death is no longer required
• CPA certification is now required only if the gross estate is above P5,000,000 (up from P2,000,000)
• The deadline for filing of estate tax return is now one year from death (before, 6 months from death)
• Bank deposits left by the decedent may be withdrawn by the heirs subject only to 6% withholding tax. Before a certification from the BIR that estate tax has been paid was required.

With the enactment of the Train law, the government expects to generate more revenues to fund its "Build, Build, Build" projects and other programs. At the same time, the labor sector is expected to be freed from the burden of outdated and inequitable personal income tax. Hopefully, this benefit for the workers can still be achieved despite the increase in prices of some goods that they consume. 

Read our law office's comprehensive comparison of the NIRC and the Train law here. – Rappler.com 

This article is for general information only. If you have any question or comment regarding this article, you may email the author at egialogo.gdlaw@gmail.com.

Atty Edward G. Gialogo is the managing partner of Gialogo Dela Fuente & Associates. He is also a tax speaker in Philippine Institute of Certified Public Accountants and Business Law Reviewer in Review School of Accountancy (ReSA). He was an Associate Director in the Tax Services of SyCip Gorres Velayo & Co.

Aside from “Ikot” and “Toki” public utility jeepneys, two wheels are getting traction as a form of transportation in the country’s premier state university— a step forward to sustainable urban mobility.

While the University of the Philippines houses the last of the few green areas at the heart of the polluted metro, it is also one of the few areas in the nation’s capital to have a dedicated cycling and walking lane at the Academic oval. (READ: 4 more reasons why we need protected bike lanes now)

Walking is an option for the Iskolars ng Bayan, but at times, tight schedules are hard to reconcile with buildings kilometers away from each other.

In this case, encouraging the use of bicycles can be a solution. UP Bike Share, a non-profit student advocacy group, is leading the way. UP Bike Share received funding from the Department of Science and Technology (DOST) to support the first fourth-generation bike sharing service in the Philippines. (READ: Here’s what bike-sharing programs need to succeed)

As part of advocating bicycle use, the organization conducted a survey to identify behavioral gaps in bicycle use. The poll showed around 83% of the students surveyed want to cycle, but only a meager 17% did so. (READ: Biking to work? Here's what you should know)

Studies show higher education institutions in both international and local contexts, have led the way towards creating greener university campuses.

Here are some points to consider on how university campuses can achieve sustainable mobility culture:

Creation of a sustainable campus office

A dedicated office to implement policies related to sustainability, including encouraging sustainable transport such as walking and cycling, will help maintain the project long-term, as well as in developing a strategic university-led transport plan at par with imminent universities.

In UP Diliman, a non-motorized mobility (NMM) subcommittee composed of an interdisciplinary team of UP Diliman faculty members was formed and works closely with the Office of the Vice Chancellor for Community Affairs (OVCCA) to encourage sustainable urban mobility within the UP Diliman campus through the implementation of policies and social marketing.

Transforming streets to living streets

A “living street” means pathways which have more pedestrians and bicycles instead of cars. The idea behind this is to make our streets social spaces where people can meet, mingle, and chat, and where children can play safely.

Inside the university, the creation of living streets will encourage and sustain a conducive academic environment as in many of the best universities in the world. The university becomes a place where beautiful minds can think, exchange ideas and insights, interact safely with diverse people, without the distractions of the noise and adverse effect of pollution from speeding motorized vehicles or parking on sidewalks meant for people. (READ: Freeing up the huge areas set aside for parking can transform our cities)

The basic idea of a living street or shared zone is that pedestrians, people on bicycle and motorized traffic have the same rights to the use of road space, but priority is given to its more vulnerable members – pedestrians and people on bicycles.

This also entails changing the speed limit within shared zones to 10 to 15 kilometers per hour. A very fast pedestrian can walk 9 kilometers per hour on average.

Changing mindset

Traffic has long been a problem in Metro Manila, as well as in other cities. Deliberate consideration of cycling and walking will provide options for people, other than the use of motorized transport, thereby improving transport equity on our streets.

Understanding the benefits of active transport will certainly help change mindsets and get community buy in, winning hearts and minds of people to further support bikesharing.

A Danish urban designer, Jan Gehl, said if we plan our cities for cars and traffic, we will certainly get cars and traffic, but if we plan our cities for people and places, for sure, we will have happier people and more liveable places.

The step towards a more sustainable urban transportation, however, should not stop inside the university. Instead, it should be a training ground for a wider implementation in key cities where traffic is a problem. – Rappler.com

A transport planner and educator, Dr. Derlie Mateo-Babiano is a Senior Lecturer at the University of Melbourne and 2017 Department of Science and Technology Balik Scientist Program Awardee. 

Professor Roselle Leah K Rivera is an Associate Professor of College of Social Work and Community Development at the University of the Philippines Diliman and has been a sustainable transport activist for more than 2 decades.

Dr. Ma. Sheilah Gaabucayan-Napalang is currently an Assistant Professor at the University of the Philippines School of Urban and Regional Planning and a fellow at the National Center for Transportation Studies of the University of the Philippines. 

Professor Nestor Michael Tiglao is Project Leader for DOST-funded Design and Development of UP Bike Share. He is Associate Professor at the University of the Philippines Electrical and Electronics Engineering Institute and the Edgar & Agnes Paynor EE Centennial Professorial Chair.

Ms. Keisha Mayuga is Project Development Officer of the DOST-funded Design and Development of UP Bike Share and a master’s student at the University of the Philippines School of Urban and Regional Planning.

Today, I received an email from a friend that I can’t resist sharing with you guys.

Dear Walden:

Fortune smiles upon me. I never sought access to a Trump press conference, but accidentally got into one. I was at the State Department the other day to interview some official there for yet another piece on terrorism in the Middle East, when everyone seemed to be rushing to the press briefing room, including the guy I was interviewing, who invited me to come along and got me through security.

Trump was visiting and calling an impromptu press conference. Everyone thought he would announce the firing of the Secretary of State, but it seemed he just wanted to joust with what he called “you purveyors of fake news.” Anyway, here’s the transcript of that really crazy press conference.

Pissing contest

Reuters:  Mr President, you said you had a bigger nuclear button than Kim Jong-Un. Looks like the two of you are having a pissing contest.

Trump:  Well, it is a pissing contest. My piss is certain to hit Pyongyang 15,000 miles away but his piss would probably only get as far as Honolulu.

Reuters: You mean you don’t worry about a North Korean missile hitting Honolulu?

Trump: Of course, I care about Hawaii. I love those people and I love the hula and called my hotel there the Queen Kamehameha. All I’m trying to say is that his missile would, at best, affect a few thousand people, but mine would be, well, much more powerful.

New York Times: Seoul and Pyongyang are separated by just a few hundred miles. So any nuclear strike on Pyongyang would also impact on Seoul, Mr President.

Trump: Well, I can’t help it if God placed Seoul and Pyongyang close to each other. But they have a subway in Seoul so people can take shelter there, like the British did in the Underground during the war.

On evolution

Guardian: On another matter, Mr President, some Tea Party groups are suing the state of Georgia for “violating free speech” by not allowing the teaching of Creationism in school alongside the theory of evolution. Mr President, what is your opinion of the theory of evolution?

Trump: It's fake news. The world was created in 7 days 4 thousand years ago.

Guardian: What about the idea of the survival of the fittest?

Trump: Oh, that's an idea from Adam Smith that I believe in. That's why I'm so successful as a businessman and as president. I'm the fittest.

Guardian: Do you believe that an asteroid hit the earth 65 million years ago, and this killed off the dinosaurs?

Trump: Nope. The dinosaurs got extinct because they refused to come aboard Noah's Ark during the Great Flood three thousand years ago.

LA Times: If you were a dinosaur, which species would you want to belong to?

Trump: I don't know. I haven't seen the movie.

LA Times: Movie?

Trump: Yes, by that guy Spielberg. I don't see movies made by liberal friends of Meryl Striptease.

Duterte, drug users, and Mexicans

At this point, I decided to do you a favor. But how would I get his attention, with all those well- known reporters raising their hands? So I decided to fake my identity and raised my hand and shouted loudly, “Mr President, you’ve just been calling men.  I’m J—R--- from the Charlottesville Klansman. We backed your stand that there was a moral equivalence between the Nazis and those violent anti-Nazi protestors.”

Trump: Oh yes, the Charlottesville Klansman. So you see, my friends, the Klan does not discriminate against women, well, at least, not against pretty women, like you, ma’am.

Me: I’d like to know what you think about the war on drugs being waged by President Duterte in the Philippines?

Trump: Oh, I just saw him in November, and I told him he was doing a great job. He’s got a big problem with drugs, like we have with illegal immigrants, with Mexicans.

Me: The human rights people say he’s killing thousands of people.

Trump:  Well, I ask those bleeding heart liberals, what choice does Duterte have? We can ship Mexicans back to their country, then build a wall to keep them out. President Duterte can’t ship those druggies to another country. All I can say is that those Mexicans should be grateful we still have Mexico to dump them in. Otherwise, I might have to call Mr Duterte for some advice.

Cheers,

J.R.

– Rappler.com

When he is not writing satirical fiction, Walden Bello writes on and teaches political economy.  He was a member of the House of Representatives from 2009 to 2015 where he made the only recorded resignation on principle from Congress owing to principled differences with then President Benigno Aquino III.

Dalawa lang daw ang tiyak sa buhay, kamatayan at buwis. Tanggap na natin ito basta hindi buwis ang ikamamatay natin.

Nandito na ang Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion law o TRAIN ng administrasyong Duterte.

Gawing simple at mas makatarungan ang buwis – 'yan ang layon ng tax law na nago-overhaul sa 20 anyos na masalimuot na batas.

Malalaman natin sa kalaunan kung nagtagumpay ba ito pero ang kagyat na tanong ay ito: ano ang epekto nito sa buhay natin?

Mukha namang pasisimplehin nito ang pagfa-file ng income tax returns at 'di na buwan-buwan kundi quarterly na filing na para sa ilang forms.

Maraming mapapangiti pagsilip sa mga paycheck. Lalaki ang take-home pay ng mga empleyado dahil itinaas sa P250,000 annual earners ang sakop ng zero income tax.

May mga ekonomistang naniniwala na ito'y makatwiran at sa kalaunan ay magdudulot ng kaibsan sa taumbayan dahil may pantustos na ang pamahalaan sa serbisyo't imprastraktura. Tumataginting na P1.89 trilyon ang gustong gastusin ng administrasyon sa road works pa lamang, at abot sa P8.44 trilyon ang nakalaan sa "Build, build, build".

Magmamahal ang yosi, softdrinks at matatamis na inumin, make-up, at kotse.

Napapanahon ang buwis sa kotse dahil hindi na kaya ng mga lansangan ang paglobo ng car sales. Pero ang mga maginoong lehislador, nakapagsingit pa nga ng tax cuts para sa bibili ng luxury vehicles.

Sa kabila ng tax-exemption candy na nakabalot sa bagong tax law, maaaring bumulaga sa atin bilang mga consumer ang inflation.

Ang mas mataas na VAT (value-added tax) at fuel taxes ay may ripple effect sa lahat halos ng consumer products, pangunahin na ang kuryente, transportasyon at pagkain. May mga ulat na nga ng pagtaas ng presyo ng karne.

Sabi ng gubyerno, short-term lang ito at sa kalaunan ay anti-inflationary daw. Pero ano ang kahulugan ng short term, at kailan aasahan ang biyaya nito? Tirik na kaya ang mata ng mahihirap 'pag nagbukang-liwayway?

Sa kabuuan, tatamaan ang mahihirap at ang informal sector – yung mga hindi swelduhan – dahil sa inaasahang inflation. Paano na ang mga walang trabaho, mga vendor, jeepney at tricycle driver, at iba pa? Para silang masasagasaan ng tren.

Tatamaan din ang mga OFW na nagpapadala ng remittance dahil tumaas din ang documentary stamps tax. Dumoble ang buwis sa bawa't P200 na padala ni Inay mula Singapore at ni Itay mula Saudi.

Maglalaho ang mga ngiti sa ating mga labi kapag nilimas ng price increases ang nadagdag sa paycheck. Baka nga sa suma total ay umurong pang parang mumurahing tela ang savings natin.

Mukhang batid ng gubyerno na ang mga dukha ang pinakatatamaan, kaya't magbibigay ng P200/buwan unconditional cash transfers sa pinakamahihirap na tutukuyin ng DSWD. Nasa 10 milyon din ang mahirap sa bansa. Kaya ba ng DSWD ang higanteng assignment na ito? Magiging sistematiko at malinis sa kurapsyon ba ang ipamumudmod nito?

At higit sa lahat sasapat ba ang dalawang daan para itawid ang isang naghihikahos na pamilya?

Lahat ng pagbubuwis ay balancing act. Merong aspeto ng buhay nating tatamaan, merong magiginhawahan. Sabi ng mga ekonomistang pabor dito, sa net effect, mainam daw ang bagong tax law. Mas marami ang makikinabang sa mahabang panahon.

Pero paano na ang mahihirap na maiksi ang pisi upang matagalan ang panahon ng inflation? Sila na naman ba ang sacrificial lamb, tulad sa gyera laban sa droga? Sila na naman ba ang dehado? – Rappler.com 

Outsiders accuse it of many things. 

For some it is idolatrous. For others still it is mindless fanaticism. The privileged think of it as hooliganism. In their view, its devotees, many of whom are urban poor, destroy everything in their path.

Whatever they say, there's no denying that the Black Nazarene continues to attract an increasing number of followers. Many will attest to its miraculous interventions. Young people are also present, which means that devotion is passed from one generation to another. 

What explains its popularity? 

Whether miracles really happen are debatable. We have no idea what divine power gets transmitted through the towels that reach the image. 

Of course some people are convinced. That there are devotees who have been faithful to the image for many years is a result of a miracle they encountered long ago. 

But the endurance of a religious tradition lies not just in the existence of these miracles. Many others are still waiting for the answers to their prayers and yet they are there. 

Solidarity

For sociologists, the power of a religious moment lies not in the stories about it but in the solidarity that people find in it. 

At one level, its devotees find solidarity with the very image of Christ. The Black Nazarene is the God who suffers. It is black, the color of death. It carries the cross, symbol of the burdens of life. It is exposed to the elements, which speaks of human vulnerabilities.

And yet at the same time, people find solidarity with one another. Yes, they are in competition for the attention of the suffering Christ. It is after all the kind of devotion not meant for the faint-hearted. 

But they are all there as devotees. They are all there seeking a miracle. They are all there with an unwritten affinity with one another by virtue of their shared experiences of illness and defeat.

It is for this reason that their solidarity with the suffering Christ is in fact solidarity with one another. The procession affords them what sociologists call collective effervescence, a sensation of belongingness. Only those who are part of the ritual will understand it. 

In this light, what is chaotic to the outsider is in fact full of order to the insider. 

Contradictions

But this is not to say that the entire procession is heaven on earth. A closer look reveals problematic contradictions.

The first is that it all takes place in Manila, a city once described as the "gates of hell". The problem is not whether the streets of Manila are supposed to be secular and therefore spared from any religious event. The issue is that alongside a compelling religious moment exist corruption and poverty. 

They manifest themselves in the ills of urban decay: homelessness, informal settlements, the underground economy, and even the proliferation of illegal drugs.

The second concerns devotees' desire for healing and the inadequacies of the healthcare system. While people's decision to seek God for healing should not be judged, we must be bothered when public health fails to address their needs. 

Although strides have been made, healthcare remains expensive and prohibitive in the Philippines. Middle-class Filipinos can enjoy private healthcare, but the same cannot be said of the wider population. 

Let me be clear: turning to religion is a choice that an individual makes. But there is a problematic contradiction when, in the midst of medical breakthroughs, all the poor could afford is a religious option. No wonder Karl Marx described religion as "the sigh of the oppressed creature, the heart of a heartless world, and the soul of soulless conditions." 

Desire for life

At its core the devotion to the Black Nazarene is a desire for better things. And so is it still surprising that its most fervent followers are the urban poor? 

In this light, the procession is an assertion of the people's right to the city – and its offerings of the good life.

Thus, the popularity of the Black Nazarene witnesses against the popularity of the war on drugs, the main victims of which are the urban poor. By the same token, the annual procession calls into question the merits of the Philippine economy's success that continues to benefit only the privileged. 

In the Black Nazarene, contradictions accompany solidarity. 

These contradictions, however, are sidestepped by the assumptions of the outsider. The devotion to the suffering Christ is neither idolatrous nor fanatical. These are simplistic remarks ignorant of the struggles of the faithful insider.

The rest of us who do not participate in this devotion need to be a little wiser – and compassionate. 

We may not agree with their piety. But at the very least we can struggle with them in their hope for liberty. – Rappler.com 

Jayeel Cornelio, PhD, is a visiting professor at the Divinity School of the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He is on leave from the Ateneo de Manila University, where he is the director of the Development Studies Program. He has written on religion and urban space. You can find him on Twitter @jayeel_cornelio. 

Little did I know up to a few weeks ago that Mamasapano would not be our last disastrous legacy from the Aquino administration. If Mamasapano was the tragic intersection of geopolitics and President Benigno Aquino III’s barkada style of governance, the Dengvaxia scandal is where PNoy’s barkadismo had its fateful tryst with the murky ethics of the global pharmaceutical industry.

A ‘professional’s professional’

And little did I know till a few weeks ago that the professionalism of one man would be vindicated. Dr Enrique Ona, the Secretary of Health (DOH) before Janette Garin, was one of the few real professionals in the Aquino administration. I know because, as a congressman, I used to question Aquino’s Cabinet members during budget hearings, and the only people I could get a straight answer from were Ona and Babes Singson, the head then of the Department of Public Works and Highways. Ona was a professional’s professional whose passion was to set up an honest-to-goodness universal health system in the Philippines like that of Thailand. 

It is hard to imagine the Sanofi deal taking place under Ona. He recounts that while he was in office, he was visited by representatives of Sanofi SA, who wanted to brief the DOH on the dengue vaccine they were developing, which was then called CYD-TDV before it was commercially branded as Dengvaxia. “They would come every year, but they did admit the drug was still in its developmental phase and I did not feel any pressure on us to purchase it.”

Sanofi probably also realized that being a stickler for professional research and ethics, Ona would never have been persuaded to purchase a drug that had not completed and passed rigorous clinical tests that proved that it was both efficacious and safe. So despite the Sanofi people assuring him that the vaccine’s meeting professional standards was just around the corner, Ona did not include an item for CYD-TVD in the budget the DOH submitted for 2016.

For 2017, however, the item for what was now called Dengvaxia was one of the biggest in the DOH budget. It was not Ona, however, who put it there, but his successor, Janette Garin. (READ: Enrique Ona: Successor 'solely responsible' for dengue vaccine mess)

‘Professional’s professional’ meets ‘politician’s politician’

Ona’s being a babe in the jungle of politics was his undoing. Having worked with then Representative Garin on the Reproductive Health Bill in 2010-2013, he agreed enthusiastically to President Benigno Aquino III’s proposal to make her one of his undersecretaries when congressional term limits prevented Garin, also a doctor of medicine, from running for Congress in 2013.

His support came from his expectation that Garin would champion his pet advocacy, universal health insurance, with Congress and the president and would bat for more funding for his woefully underfunded agency. In Ona’s vision, Garin would be his liaison to Malacañang, with which she had developed close ties. 

I had also worked with Garin to get the RH Bill through Congress and had developed some respect for her for that. But, unlike Ona, I also knew that Garin was, as the song by Sade goes, a “smooth operator” who was ambitious and who would cotton up to whoever was in power. A “politician’s politician,” she had easily shifted loyalties from GMA to Aquino after the elections of 2010.

Ona’s key staffers immediately sensed that Garin was really after his job, and true enough, as soon as she became undersecretary, Garin began to undermine him. Ona’s eyes were gradually opened to Garin’s agenda, though he still was hesitant to impute questionable motives to her.

When the Priority Development Assistance Fund, better known as the pork barrel, was eliminated in 2014, she demanded that all unspent PDAF funds for health projects be centralized in her office so she could dispense them as patronage to members of Congress who would request them. Ona opposed this blatantly self-serving move on Garin’s part, embittering her. Instead of pushing for Ona’s universal health care agenda, she began to go about pushing him out, spreading unsubstantiated allegations about corruption under his watch. 

Garin had worked her way into the PNoy barkada that included presidential buddies like the Abad power couple, Executive Secretary (ES) Paquito Ochoa, and Cabinet Secretary Rene Almendras, and she had PNoy’s ear, unlike Ona. “I could never get the President to sit down with me to seriously discuss universal health care, not once during the 4-and-a-half years I served him,” Ona told me.    

(This predicament of Ona’s is one I could relate to since I had encountered the same difficulty when I tried to raise my concerns with the president about likely corruption on the part of then budget secretary Butch Abad’s handling of the Disbursement Acceleration Program [DAP]. In a remarkable hour-long meeting, Aquino jumped like a boy on a pogo stick from one topic to another, except the one I wanted to talk to him about.)

Leaving the snakepit

When, without his being told, Ona learned that ES Ochoa had countermanded his decision to remove a corrupt head of a regional medical center in Northern Luzon, Ona finally began to realize that his days might be numbered. Then when he heard on the grapevine that without informing him, Aquino, apparently at Garin’s instigation, was having him investigated by the National Bureau of Investigation for corruption, he was outraged, but even more, he felt that a coup was just around the corner. 

When then secretary of justice Leila de Lima confirmed that he was, indeed, under investigation, Ona told himself that the only honorable way out of what had become a snakepit of intrigue against him was to resign. His only mistake, he said, was that he did not attach the world “irrevocable” to his resignation letter to Ochoa, which would have left no doubt in anyone’s mind that the initiative to step down came from him and not Malacañang and that he had done so in protest at the injustice being done to him.

Once Garin took his place, rumors about corruption at the DOH under Ona died down. But she proceeded to dismantle moves toward institutionalizing universal health care, like Ona’s plan to expand primary health care benefits under Philhealth. Money was diverted to Garin’s pet projects, like hiring 20,000 health assistants and purchasing hundreds of apparently overpriced DOH “Dental Buses” from China, which made little sense in terms of the country’s health needs but made a lot of sense as vote-getting gimmicks in the looming 2016 elections. She also engaged in empire-building, gaining direct control of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), which former DOH secretaries had treated as practically an independent agency to protect its professional integrity and avoid potential conflicts of interest.

But most ominous of all, in the view of the DOH insiders, was that the Sanofi lobby that had kept a respectful distance from Ona had become tight with Garin, bringing her to their Paris headquarters in their effort to convince her to make a huge order of the Dengvaxia vaccine despite the fact that the drug had not yet gotten adequate vetting by international medical authorities. Garin, in turn, convinced Aquino to devote part of his packed schedule during the climate change conference in Paris in December 2015 to a meeting with Sanofi executives at their office.

Race to the market hits a stop sign

By this time, Sanofi was turning on the heat. Most likely, the urgency was coming from the French pharmaceutical giant’s fear that another dengue vaccine produced by a US corporation might soon receive the approval of the US government’s Center for Disease Control (CDC) and would be rushed to the market to beat the Sanofi drug. Indeed, a survey of the CDC website reveals 5 anti-dengue vaccines that are currently at various stages of development, two of which are at advanced stages: Takeda Corporation’s TAK003 and Merck and the US National Institute of Health’s TV003.

But even as Sanofi escalated the pressure on Garin and Aquino, the international medical authorities were warning against adopting the vaccine without more rigorous testing. A paper with multiple authors that appeared in the prestigious New England Journal of Medicine (Vol 373, No. 13, Sept 24, 2015) revealed that clinical trials showed that previously uninfected children of a certain age group showed a disturbingly higher risk than previously infected children to contract severe dengue after being vaccinated.

Indeed, so worried were the editors that they accompanied the article with an editorial titled, “A Candidate Vaccine Walks a Tightrope.” According to the editorial, which hit the dengue research field like a thunderbolt, “Most eye-catching is the suggestion that CYD-TDV [Dengvaxia] vaccination was associated with an elevated risk of hospitalization for dengue among children younger than 9 years of age (but most markedly, among those 2 to 5 years of age) when they were naturally infected in the third year after vaccination.” [emphasis ours]

It concluded that “we still lack definitive immune correlates of protection or vaccine-associated disease risk. A lesson from these trials, and from our understanding of the natural history of dengue epidemiology, is that partial, waning immunity is a particularly unwelcome outcome after vaccination. "Live vaccines need to be sufficiently potent in their infectiousness and replicative capacity to initiate immunity in both unexposed recipients and those with partial immunity…The bumpy road to a vaccine-based solution for dengue continues.” [emphasis ours].

For Ona, the report and the editorial were a stop sign. “For a medical professional and public official dealing with dengue, like Garin, the article was required reading, especially since there was a critical editorial accompanying it,“ he said. “The vaccine was clearly not ready for widespread use, certainly not for the 800,000 or so children who have been vaccinated at the cost of P3 billion, a sum that was much bigger than the whole budget for immunization of the DOH.”

Ona said that it was curious that about half of the 20 authors of the article were researchers of Sanofi.  “It seemed like their scientists were telling us, the vaccine isn't ready for use yet,” he conjectured. Sanofi’s marketing division, however, had a different idea from its scientists. By then the marketing people were determined to clinch the Philippine deal, whatever were the qualms of the scientists.

Garin speeds things up

But it was not like Philippine medical authorities were blind to the dangers of Dengvaxia. As the recent Senate hearings revealed, there was a lot of hesitation among top Philippine health experts owing to the drug’s now obviously checkered history of clinical testing. Nevertheless, the purchase was made despite apprehensions among key DOH personnel because, as the former acting head of the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), Dr Kenneth Hartigan-Go, admitted at one of the congressional hearings, a political decision had already been made at the top to buy the vaccine that superseded clinical testing considerations.

The FDA, in fact, played a crucial role in muscling through the adoption of the vaccine, with Hartigan-Go claiming that the vaccine could be granted an exemption by the Formulary Executive Council (FEC) although it had not yet been evaluated for inclusion in the Philippine National Drug Formulary (PNDF). Garin, it might be noted, had gained direct control of the FDA, which was unusual since, as mentioned earlier, it had traditionally functioned as practically an independent agency.

The same Senate hearing revealed that a huge budget item had already been allocated for Dengvaxia for 2017 despite its non-inclusion in the PNDF. As Dr Melissa Guerrero, head of the FEC admitted, it was the first time she had witnessed such speed in the approval of the budgetary allotment for a drug. 

In short, while there was a rush to the market on the part of Sanofi, there was also a rush to clinch the deal on the Philippine end. The meeting of two very interested parties produced the debacle that Ona characterized in a public statement as a “health nightmare” for the country.

Was there a payoff?

Ona asserted that since from a professional point of view, there was no justification for adopting the vaccine, “some other factor must have been operating.” I asked: Was there a corruption involved, was there a corporate payoff to certain individuals? A professional to the core, he replied that he was not competent to answer that question and would leave it to the relevant authorities to determine the answer. 

It will be important to probe this issue, given the very questionable circumstances involved. Ona asserts that the buck stopped with Garin and not Aquino since it was the job of the DOH chief to provide advice on public health issues to the president. Certainly, Garin should be made accountable, but Aquino and his crony Butch Abad must share the blame.

With such a big corporation rushing the Philippine government to make a massive financial commitment, to the point of luring the president of the country to visit its headquarters, Aquino and Abad should have realized that the matter ought to have been looked at more closely and moved to slow things down. Unless, of course, something made them avert their eyes at the highly irregular events taking place under their very noses. 

It is especially important to probe the issue of corporate payoffs since the Dengvaxia decision was made as the country was entering the electoral season. The Liberal Party was by then desperately scouring the landscape for money and went to the extent of marginalizing reformers in its ranks and appointing as party leaders tainted figures with access to huge amounts of cash, like then Pampanga Governor Lilia Pineda, wife of the notorious “Jueteng King,” Bong Pineda. Sanofi could have been a source of campaign funds.

A big joke

When the FDA suspended marketing and use of Dengvaxia and fined Sanofi a piddling P100,000 a few days ago, Ona thought it was a big joke. “It’s not a joke for the 800,000 kids who have been vaccinated,” he said. “Can you imagine? The parents thought their children were going to get protection from dengue. Instead, they get a higher risk of contracting it than if they’ve not been vaccinated at all.

Can you just imagine how complex and expensive it will be for us to follow up on all those children over the years to determine who and how many died because of exposure to the vaccine and to ensure that all those vaccinated know the risks involved so they can protect themselves.” Ona asserted that in one case of death of a child from dengue that he is familiar with, he is sure that exposure to the vaccine had heightened susceptibility to the disease.

Unfortunately, international sanctions and penalties for corporate crimes like that committed by Sanofi are weak, usually consisting of fines and not involving the jailing of corporate executives or withdrawal of corporate charters. Someday we will have an International Criminal Court for corporate crimes, but in the meantime, corporate pirates like Sanofi are largely free to roam and prey. Sanofi may lose the market for the dengue vaccine as a result of the scandal. But that is not enough punishment for a corporate crime of this scale.

We may not be able to make Sanofi fully accountable, but at least we can make its local partners in wrongdoing pay for their deeds. We cannot afford a repeat of this deadly meeting of barkada politics and corporate greed. – Rappler.com

*Walden Bello made the only recorded resignation-on-principle in the history of the Congress of the Philippines owing to principled differences with then president Benigno Aquino III on a number of issues, including the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), the tragic Mamasapano raid, and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States. He served in the House of Representatives from 2009 to 2015, five years of which he was Chairman of the Committee on Overseas Workers’ Affairs. He was one of the principal authors of the Reproductive Health Act.

There’s a great deal of confusion and fear now surrounding the new tax reform law or TRAIN, so much so that even high-ranking government officials are spreading wrong advice on how to deal with it.

But many are genuinely interested to know: when all is said and done, is TRAIN good or bad? How will it impact ordinary Filipinos?

In a sense, this is futile to ask. Tax reform is, by nature, a series of pluses and minuses. So it’s really hard to say whether TRAIN is categorically “good” or “bad”.

But let’s try to answer it anyway. I argue that, while TRAIN is good for Filipinos in general (especially in the long run), it will hurt the incomes of the poor (especially in the short run).

Without enough offsetting transfers delivered by the DSWD, the poor will lie dangerously close to TRAIN’s tracks.

A watered-down law

It may be hard to believe, but a lot of good economics actually went into the very first draft of TRAIN. After more than a year of debates and concessions, however, a lot of these good ideas ended up being watered down.

First, TRAIN cuts personal income taxes and hikes taxes on certain products like sugar-sweetened beverages and petroleum. In doing so, TRAIN adheres to the basic idea that people should be taxed for what they take out of the economy, not for what they put into it.

But: The new income taxes will matter little to the poor (since many of them are minimum wage earners and tax-exempt to begin with) and those in the informal sector (like taho vendors, jeepney drivers, sari-sari store owners).

Second, TRAIN aligns with the usual prescription of economists to “widen the tax base”: that is, to tax more goods rather than less, because this gives us more room to lower the tax rate on any one good.

But: While TRAIN removed many tax exemptions, it also introduced new, almost arbitrary ones, like electric vehicles and pickups.

Third, TRAIN imposed taxes on goods that produce socially undesirable effects, such as petroleum products (for the pollution they create), automobiles (for the congestion they cause), and cigarettes and sugar sweetened beverages (for the health problems they pose).

But: These tax hikes ended up lower than expected because of intense lobbying from the affected industries. Lawmakers even managed to pass tax cuts for luxury cars.

Fourth, TRAIN included provisions to simplify our overly complex tax system, like limiting income tax returns to 4 pages and requiring quarterly rather than monthly filing for certain forms.

But: This doesn’t solve other key administrative issues, such as chronic corruption in the Bureau of Customs.

All in all, the first package of TRAIN was an opportunity to correct many problems that have long ailed our tax system. While a step in the right direction, many of TRAIN’s well-meaning provisions got watered down by politicians.

Remember that we’re just on the first package of TRAIN. Any imperfection can still be fine-tuned and remedied in the future packages. (READ: Duterte wants 2^nd tax reform package to fund teachers’ salary hike)

How TRAIN hurts the poor

The biggest problem with TRAIN is that it’s not very progressive. Sure, its taxes reduce the incomes of the richest individuals, like CEOs and other top taxpayers. But it will also hurt the incomes of the poor.

Figure 1 summarizes the net impact of TRAIN on the take-home pay of people with different incomes, using the DOF’s official Tax Calculator. Throughout, I computed the effect of TRAIN on single persons in the private sector with 4 dependents each.

Figure 1. These estimates are based on the 2018 projected monthly income of people across income groups (deciles).

Focus on the orange bars first, which show the raw impact of TRAIN’s new taxes.

The biggest winners from TRAIN are the unskilled workers (who will enjoy a 4.3% bump in their monthly incomes), followed by skilled workers (4.1%), partly skilled workers (4%), professionals (3.8%), and the middle class (3%).

Meanwhile, the biggest losers are CEOs and top taxpayers (whose incomes will fall by 1.8% to 3.5%). At the same time, the poor will also see income cuts, albeit not as much (less than 1% of their incomes).

TRAIN hurts the poor chiefly because of its higher excise taxes and the faster rise of prices (or higher inflation) it causes. Fewer VAT exemptions and higher excise taxes will push up the prices of food and transportation, and this will eat away at people’s take-home pay.

I wrote before that the richest households consume most of the petroleum products in the country, so that they (not the poor) will suffer the most from higher excise taxes on petroleum.

But higher petroleum taxes will spill over to the rest of the economy, from the costlier transport of vegetables from Baguio to the larger Meralco bills coming through our doorsteps.

The higher inflation that TRAIN will stoke will, unfortunately, hurt the poor the most. Data show that everyone will hurt from higher inflation, but the effect on the poorest will be more than twice the effect on the richest.

Will the transfers be sufficient?

TRAIN, therefore, will have the bitter side-effect of hurting the incomes of the poor. The government was aware of this from the very beginning.

To counteract this, part of TRAIN’s revenues will go back to the poorest households, as identified by the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD). Preparations for these lump sum transfers reportedly started last year.

For 2018, the transfer is P200 per poor family per month, or P2,400 per poor family per year. This monthly lump sum will increase to P300 in 2019 and 2020.

The hope is that, when poor families receive such transfers, they will enjoy higher take-home pay in spite of TRAIN’s new taxes. This is represented by the blue bars in Figure 1.

But this is a big if. Many questions about this transfer scheme remain unanswered and unresolved (and receive surprisingly little attention in media.)

For example: are these amounts enough to tide over each poor family? How ready is the DSWD to effectively distribute the money to 10 million poor households? How sure are we that politicians will not exploit such transfers to promote their campaigns for 2019?

Aside from the logistical nightmare of such a massive transfer, the poor are also vulnerable to the recent surge of profiteering induced by TRAIN. Many retail establishments are already using TRAIN as an excuse to post higher prices for their goods and services.

The poor, unaware of illegal profiteering, could easily be taken advantage of. Will P200 also protect them from such profiteering?

How to avoid a TRAINwreck

Tax reform is not just an opportunity to make the economy more efficient; it’s also a chance to make society a little bit fairer.

But it’s still the early days. We don’t yet know whether TRAIN will achieve the former, much less the latter.

It’s unfortunate that TRAIN’s new taxes will tend to reduce the take-home pay of the poor. Without sufficient offsetting transfers, the new taxes could end up harming the poor instead of improving their plight.

But now that TRAIN has left the station, so to speak, we can only hope that the offsetting transfers are sufficient and reach their intended beneficiaries in a timely manner, especially once the higher prices start to kick in.

Otherwise, the new law could prove to be the #TRAINwreck many people are already claiming it to be. – Rappler.com

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

Check out the DOF’s new Tax Calculator to see how TRAIN could impact your own income: http://taxcalculator.ph/.

MANILA, Philippines – Fake news and disinformation has reached crisis proportions all over the world. History teacher Leloy Claudio gives us 5 tips to identify – and shield ourselves from – fake news. – 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

Is Duterte a dictator, a fascist, or a populist?

5 tips when writing in English

In one of those rare moments, Rodrigo Duterte said something comprehensible and, moreover, decidedly revelatory about both himself and us.

Never mind that he may not be aware, given his mental condition, of the implications of what he said, but it was worrisome enough that he, as president, said it, and that what he said was just too consistent with his "anti-social narcissistic personality."

Television journalist Jessica Soho got it out of him when she asked if he did not sometimes feel the need to explain himself. It might have been adequately proper of him to have simply said no, sorry, but his condition prevented him. 

His presidential ego apparently bruised by the suggestion of some imperfection on his part, he threw the problem back at Soho and the rest of the nation, "If you cannot understand me...the Filipino nation, kayo, ang may problema." 

Supporters tend to present Duterte as a sort of eccentric or maverick, and official explainers clarify as "mere hyperbole" his utterances that normally would be offensive, while attempting to portray him as a bold and decisive, if unusual, leader. But he comes across instead as crass and deviant. His refusal to even try to make an effort to make the nation that made him president know where he's taking it, for instance, constitutes an in-your-face mockery of it. 

But how could Duterte's regime have been expected to be benign at all when a ringing reputation for ruthlessness as mayor of Davao City for more than two decades had preceded him? He had been known not only to keep a death squad but to sometimes do the job himself– he has in fact publicly owned to 4 kills by his own hand (hyperbole?). The diagnosis of his mental disorder is a matter of public record, having been admitted into evidence in a marriage-annulment case won by his wife.

Sure enough, upon assuming the presidency, Duterte began acting out his draconian impulses. He mounted a brutal and obsessive war against drugs and threatened to pursue it until all 4 million drug dealers and users were dead. Actually, it will take a few centuries to exterminate that number (his own count) at the rate his war is going, which has netted, at the hands of police and vigilantes, 16,000 dead, about the highest estimate, in the year and a half of his six-year term.

Duterte also sent his troops and bombers against what he called an Islamic State (ISIS)-inspired, homebred enemy in the southern city of Marawi. He declared the battle won after 5 months, but has kept the whole island of Mindanao, where Marawi is situated, under martial law. Indeed, his oft-expressed wish is to put the entire nation under a revolutionary government.

Where all this sense of emergency is coming from he is unable to say with a modicum of reason. But why should he even bother to explain? The opinion polls show that he has remained widely popular the way he is, Congress has been doing his bidding without question, and the Supreme Court deciding in favor of just about every case he is known to support.

Meanwhile, Leila de Lima, who, as chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, had investigated Duterte when he was mayor and continued, as senator, to go after him when he became president, has been thrown in jail, summarily. And Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno, who simply, and ever so gently, reminded Duterte about the principle of separation of powers when he started undermining the judiciary, is now being dragged through impeachment hearings in the Lower House before she is tried in the Senate.

The ombudsman, former Supreme Court Justice Conchita Carpio-Morales, is herself threatened with impeachment, and all she's done is assert her independence and show, as only expected of her, no fear of, or favor for, anyone – sitting president or past president or no president.

Thus democracy is hijacked and perverted to allow tyranny by the majority. Duterte and Congress are in it together for one conspiratorial cause: a constitutional amendment providing for a shift from the present unitary system to a nation of federalist states. Doubtless, the allure of federalism to its sponsors is that it will solidify the grip on power of the very political gangs and dynasties they represent and institutionalize the culture of patronage that has dominated all levels of Philippine politics.

Congress has in fact begun the federalism ball rolling on Duterte's signal. And, hoping to catch the pro-Duterte wave of sentiments in the plebiscite for federalism, it is taking the quickest and surest, though not the most ethical, route; instead of leaving the constitutional rewriting to a nationally elected commission, it has decided to do the job itself – and serve itself.

So, does President Duterte need yet to make us see where he's taking us? Isn't it obvious enough?

We're bound for constitutional tyranny! – Rappler.com

“Para nating ipinasulat sa mga zombie ang Konstitusyon.” ‘Yan ang hinaing ng isang party-list congressman sa pagpapaubaya ng charter change sa Kongreso.

Totoong maraming butas ang 30-anyos na Saligang Batas. Andyan ang mga probisyong ‘di na angkop sa panahon o di kaya’y sadyang malabo ang pagkakasulat.

Matayog din ang adhikain ni Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte. Sa pamamagitan ng Charter Change, nais niyang ilipat sa federalism ang sistema ng gobyerno. Layon niyang wakasan ang imperyalismo ng Maynila at madesentralisa ang kapangyarihan pabalik sa mga mga probinsya at lokal na pamahalaan. 

Magkakatalo nang malaki sa kung sino ang magpapanganak sa Saligang Batas – mga eksperto ba sa batas sa isang Constititional Convention (Con-Con), o mga lehislador sa isang Constitutional Assembly (Con-Ass)?

Ngayong nakita ng Pangulo na aabot ang gastos sa isang Con-Con sa P7 bilyon, kumambyo s’ya at nagpasyang mag-Con-Ass na lang.  

Ano ang sentral na usapin? Tiwala. Sa kasong ito, ang kasalatan ng tiwala sa mga kongresista na bubuo sa Con-Ass na mag-aakda sa pinakasagradong batas ng bansa.

Magtitiwala ka ba sa Mababang Kapulungan na ginagawang libangan ang mang-impeach at ipatawag ang mga sumasalungat sa Presidente, tulad ni Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno? Silang mga kongresista na nagpasa ng isang taong extension ng martial law sa Mindanao at malinaw na rubber-stamp ng Palasyo?

Makaaasa ba tayo ng malalim, matalino at maprinsipyong paghubog sa isang bagong Konstitusyon sa kamay ng mga kongresistang nagtampisaw sa misogyny o panlalait sa isang babae nang imbestigahan nito si Senadora Leila de Lima?

Magtitiwala ka ba sa kapulungan na mapag-imbot at garapal na pinagkaitan ng budget ang oposisyon?

Magtitiwala ka ba sa kapulungan na pinangungunahan ng House Speaker na tila lasing sa kapangyarihan at nais ipa-disbar ang mga mahistradong sumalungat sa kanya?

Magtitiwala ka ba sa Kongreso na pawang galing sa mga political dynasty at hindi nahihiyang isingit ang kanilang vested interest sa paggawa ng batas?

Katwiran ni House Majority Leader Rudy Fariñas nasa taumbayan ang huling pagpapasya sa pamamagitan ng isang plebesito. Pero paano na kung 73% sa mga boboto ang hindi nakakaunawa o hindi nakabasa ni minsan ng Konstitusyon? Sa tindi ng pag-iidolo nila kay Tatay Digong, hindi ba’t malamang ay bulag nilang sasang-ayunan ang panukalang Konstitusyon?

Samantala, naging malaking isyu ngayon kung magkasama o hiwalay na boboto ang mga kongresista at senador dahil na rin sa kalabuan ng Charter na nais nilang baguhin. “Upon a vote of 3/4 of all its members” ang nakasaad, nguni’t ‘di malinaw kung paano boboto. Nag-aalburoto ang lahat ng mga senador, oposisyon man o maka-administrasyon, dahil lulusawin ng 300 na kongresista ang 23 nilang boto. Tsk, tsk.

Pero marami pang resbak ang Cha-Cha na hindi natin napagtatanto. Andyan ang No-El  o "No Elections" at ayon kay Senador Panfilo Lacson, tila gigil na ang ilang mga congressman sa senaryong ito.

Nangunguna rito si House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez na gustong madaliin ang paggawa ng draft ng charter. Ang timetable nya: magpulong sa Enero at magplebesito ng Mayo! ‘Yan ang shotgun wedding. Mapipikot ang sambayanang Pilipino sa pagpapakasal sa sistema ng pederalismo gamit ang Cha-Cha express.

Mahalagang isyu man ang relevance ng Senado, may mas mahalagang usapin na dapat nating harapin: may tiwala ba tayo sa Kongreso?

Magtitiwala ka bang isulat ng mga maginoong ito ang kinabukasan ng bayan at ng susunod na henerasyon? 

Mukhang hindi 'ata kami tiwala. – Rappler.com

When I took my morning walk the other day, I realized that we now have an ingrained inability to appreciate sidewalks.

We are not a walking city despite our over-the-top traffic situation. Given what I understand of how cities should look in the future, this is yet another cause for concern that we are being left behind. Walking would reduce traffic and pollution. Making walking pleasurable and safe would be a great way to increase the general health of our population.

There are many reasons why people do not walk, even short distances, in Metro Manila. And one of them is that we have lousy sidewalks even if they exist.

I say “if they exist”, because I have seen some roads where sidewalks are non-existent. There are places where people’s front doors actually let out into the street. Scandalous, really. And I do not know who to blame but it is likely that there is a large amount of stupidity and a larger amount of corruption on the part of the government officials concerned and the private contractor.

Many sidewalks though are non-existent because they have been taken over by cars, stores, stalls, funeral wakes, public toilets, jeepney and tricycle depots, and nuclear bomb silos. Well, maybe not nuclear bomb silos. But I wouldn’t be surprised given what one finds on our sidewalks other than pedestrians. In fact, pedestrians are the least likely of the many animate and inanimate things we can find on our sidewalks.

Our subdivision has sidewalks. But when I take my morning walks, I notice no one uses our sidewalks anyway. Everyone still walks on the road. This includes me until the other day.

I know why I walk on the road. Because I am not used to walk on sidewalks in Metro Manila. In the first place why bother if you have to step off the curb for the fish vendor, vegetable vendor, illegal arms trader or whoever has taken over the sidewalk for reasons not related to walking? So even in our subdivision where there are sidewalks, I automatically walk on the road.

Our subdivision sidewalks aren’t very helpful either in terms of teaching the habit of walking on the sidewalk. Cars are parked on both sides of the street, the pavement is broken up here and there, dog and cat shit is left by irresponsible pet owners and some people have put all sorts of tacky landscaping on the sidewalk. (Obviously there are noveau riche people where I live who think they own the sidewalk in front of their house just because they bought the house.)

Contrast this with our roads, which are smooth, because tires are more important than feet – and it is inevitable that pedestrians must swallow their pride and sneak into spaces provided for cars.

Cost-benefit analysis of sidewalks

Yet I now walk on the sidewalks in our subdivision. I did a cost-benefit analysis and decided the benefits outweigh the inconvenience.

1) There are parts of my route that are busy with cars. Staying on the sidewalk is still safer than risking getting run over.

2) Because there are many potential dangers like tripping on uneven pavement or a tree root, getting hit in the eye by a tree branch because some of my neighbors like their plants growing wild, stepping on dog and cat shit – I have to concentrate on where I am going. This concentration takes my mind off the aches and pains this old body feels whenever it is made to exercise. It also allows me to be mentally challenged and not just physically challenged when I walk.

3) Walking on the sidewalk also allows me to see the gardens of my neighbors who do get it right. Some stretches are clean, and their frontages display orchids, and mums and forget-me-nots and so many interesting things.

4) There is a bird that lives in the bush up the road. If I walk slowly and quietly it comes and gives me a cynical look.

5) I do my patriotic duty by giving people a mental image of what should be the norm: a pedestrian walking on the sidewalk.

Dengvaxia

In the use of any technology, whether that be sidewalks or an anti-dengue vaccine, it is crucial to do a cost-benefit analysis such as what I have done with the sidewalks.

Even the question of safety is best approached this way. Thus, whether it is safe to walk in the sidewalk depends on many things. A cost-benefit analysis requires that we  have knowledge of the technology itself, the conditions in which the technology will be used, who will benefit if it is used, and to whom it would pose a danger.

This is where the role of experts can come in. Experts can do the cost-benefit analysis correctly or they can be unethical and skew their cost-benefit analysis to make political points. Some may have not be experts, claim they are, and do it badly.

In the continuing saga regarding the anti-dengue vaccine, I have heard everyone from a former congressmen to sitting senator, to media people make statements about aspects of the vaccine for which they have no expertise.

What is worse is that medical doctors who should be more ethical have made statements that go against the assessment of the majority experts who say the vaccine is safe and effective if used properly. Forensic experts release results about possible patterns of suspected deaths without telling us that so many deaths that are unrelated in terms of cause, have similar patterns. Some “experts” tend to go hog-wild about safety concerns (costs) without being honest with the public about the benefits. They won’t tell the public that a cost-benefit analysis for every technology is the proper approach. Without a cost-benefit analysis, we wouldn’t be using most of the drugs and medical procedures we are using now.

Other experts spread lies about the way the FDA monitors adverse reactions, how it is properly done and what it means. Post market monitoring, in one sense, is a continuing way of ensuring that the cost-benefit analysis that shows the drug can be used by the general public was essentially correct. Those who lie about what the process entails know that their political agenda would not be validated if people understood that it is being done properly.

I hope this issue dies down soon. The lies have scared people, wasted resources, and put the public’s health at risk. Studies have shown that when people are scared over one vaccine, they not only refuse that vaccine even if they shouldn’t, they also refuse other vaccines.

Someday, someone should write about how the introduction of this vaccine was handled in the Philippines. They need to know why, of the many countries where the vaccine has been approved and used, only the Philippines is having such an uproar. When things finally are less politicized we will know who are the true experts who kept faith with their mandate to give people the real information they need to make the proper health decisions. – Rappler.com

Sylvia Estrada Claudio is a doctor of medicine who is also a doctor of philosophy in psychology. She has been an advocate of monitoring the ethical and unethical practices of physicians and drug companies.

During the period of Martial Law, there were voices in the night that dared speak truth to power and thus inspired courage among many of us who strove to struggle against a formidable dictatorship. 

Among them were the people writing in the so-called “mosquito press” that was a term of endearment for those who braved to write for Malaya and Mr and Ms that operated on a shoestring budget with the support of its fervent following.

We are Rapplers all!

As Rappler stands its ground, I believe that this will be a moment that we will long remember.  In a sense, “We are Rapplers all!” 

We stand strong, if we stand together. We will not be moved from the positions that we take on the basis of our conscience, our convictions and our commitment to truth. To do so in this time and place, we need courage to stay the course. And, this is the courage that Rappler inspires.

I am in a way, a character witness to some of the people who write or who have written for Rappler, some of them for nearly 4 decades that stretches back to the Martial Law years. The people of Rappler have put themselves on the frontline of fire to write on events and convey the news as they truly happened, to report the truth, and at times to express their opinions even though those in power may feel alluded to or offended. But, that is the nature of the craft: to tell it like it is, without fear or favor.

Sometime ago, I recall writing a brief piece, entitled, “They shoot journalists, don’t they?” In a sense, what those in high places have done through the ruling handed down by the Securities and Exchange Commission is to silence journalists by virtually shutting down Rappler; in so doing, they have also deprived citizen-writers and thinkers who wish to express their thoughts in Rappler’s online pages the kind of safe spaces to discuss openly and respectfully issues that matter most to deepen our democracy.

Moral courage

As a framer of the 1987 Constitution, I see the Bill of Rights as a critical bedrock of our democracy, particularly, the right to free speech and the freedom of the press, accompanied by the right to due process. 

At a time when there is indecent haste on the part of the House of Representatives to ride a “bullet train” to Charter Change, it is time that we pause on the meaning of courage and courageous citizenship that is reflective and engaged, that nurtures trust and respect for others as well as tolerance for differences and diversity in our midst.

Citizens need to be brave in the midst of adversity, in the choices we have to make even if it goes against the grain. At this juncture in our history, we are called once again I believe to exercise our moral courage as a people: to show brave behavior in the face of risks and threats, despite all the costs. It means the ability to do the right thing in the right way in the face of one’s fears. 

There are times when we know that the odds are stacked heavily against us, that there seems to be unanimity that our chances are slim, even nil. Nevertheless, we go ahead and take a stand and take action because it is what our convictions and conscience tell us. This is what moral courage is all about. – Rappler.com

Prof Ed Garcia was a framer of the 1987 Constitution who worked with Amnesty International and International Alert, taught at UP and the Ateneo, and in post-retirement works on the formation of scholar-athletes at FEU-Diliman.

In the days following the Securities and Exchanges Commission’s (SEC) decision to revoke Rappler’s articles of incorporation, Malacañang repeatedly denied that it was a form of political harassment. In an interview on ANC’s Headstart, Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque said:  "What evidence does she (Maria Ressa) have that government orchestrated this decision? None, given the credibility of the persons who wrote the decision, and given the legal mandate of the SEC.”

In as much as the administration would like to paint the issue as one that is not politically driven, it's imperative to look at the issue and see that it does not exist in a vacuum.

Let’s take a look at the timeline. In President Rodrigo Duterte's second State of the Nation Address in July 2017, he echoed a false claim that Rappler is owned by Americans: “ABS, o Rappler, kayo ba ‘yan? Have you tried to pierce your identity? And I would lead you to America. Do you know that? And yet the Constitution requires you to be 100% media, Filipino. Rappler tried to pierce the identity, and you will end up American ownership.”

The President and his cabal of pundits have conflated the existence of Philippine Depositary Receipts or PDRs to be tantamount to ownership which is false.

The President had echoed this claim since then. Six months later, the SEC came with its decision based on an investigation conducted upon the prompting of the government’s counsel, Solicitor General Jose Calida. (READ: Solicitor General initiated SEC investigation into Rappler)

During the investigation period, Rappler cooperated with the SEC, cognizant of the SEC’s mandate to perform its due diligence. But due process was not followed and the company was meted with punitive action that is arguably not commensurate to the alleged violation.

Rappler's lawyer, Francis Lim, pointed out that other remedies were available to cure the violations without resorting to the revocation of the license: "Stockholders remain the same. Voting power remains with the stockholders of Rappler Holdings and Rappler Inc. Why do you revoke? Why do you go to that extreme penalty – kill the company – when there are other measures?" (READ:
If there was a violation, Rappler not given time to cure it – lawyer) 

In a similar case involving foreign ownership and PLDT Incorporated, SEC Memorandum Circular 8, Series of 2013 gave corporations a one-year curing period to correct violations of the foreign ownership rule. The same was not applied to Rappler’s case. SEC chairpersonTeresita Herbosa told the Philippine Daily Inquirer  that the Securities Regulation Code "does not provide for it (one-year curing period) in case of violation of any of its provisions.”

A history of hostility

In as much as the Duterte administration would like to insist that the incident involving Rappler is an isolated case, it would be remiss to ignore the context and the current political climate that news and media organizations perceived as critical of the government currently function in.

There have been several incidents in the past few months that show that this isn’t the first time the President and his administration have flexed their muscles to intimidate news organizations that they deem critical.

In August of 2016, Solicitor General Jose Calida himself personally served the notice to vacate to tenants of the Prietos' Mile Long property. In July 2017, President Duterte threatened an exposé against the Inquirer. He insinuated that the Prietos, the owners of the Inquirer, skirted tax laws regarding the Mile Long property.

It didn’t take long before the family announced the sale of their majority stake in Inquirer to Ramon Ang, a businessman, who President Duterte calls his friend. Ang is also his campaign donor.

The pressure was on and it was palpable in the Inquirer newsroom. Rappler gave a glimpse in a Newsbreak report, "Duterte's target: The Philippine Daily Inquirer."

Aware of the difficult terrain that the newspaper was navigating under Duterte, some Inquirer editors exerted extra effort to show balance in their stories to show management they were not being unreasonable.

"We would catch ourselves practicing self-censorship," one of them said. "It was sad and tears were shed," said another. 

Nothing they did, though, could seem to pacify the powers that be.

The Newsbreak report, written in August 2017, proved to be prophetic. For even after the Prietos had given up the Inquirer, it appeared that President Duterte was still not satisfied. Just this week, he hurled yet another grave threat at the family: "One of these days, I’ll file a plunder case. When I file a plunder case, you will go to jail without a bail. You'll see, you fools." 

Apart from print and online media, Duterte also had a bone to pick with broadcast media. In April 2017, President Duterte sought to block the renewal of ABS-CBN's franchise, accusing the network of "swindling" him when he was still a presidential candidate. In an interview, he said: “[The franchise] has been there for 25 years. The law said it’s okay, only if you adhere to journalistic standards. What did you do to us? Estafa, swindling, not only me but Chiz Escudero, many of us. Son of a bitch, you collected outright then you commit estafa."

The accusations are rooted in Duterte's allegations that the network refused to air his ads during the 2016 campaign. (READ: Duterte's ace against ABS-CBN, the Philippines' biggest network)

President Duterte can deny it all he likes, but there's just no way he can dispel the suspicion that he is behind the move to drive the news website Rappler out of business.

All the Securities and Exchange Commission did was formalize the judgment; it pronounced Rappler guilty under the law that requires all Philippine-registered companies to be owned wholly by Filipinos and revoked its permit to operate. But the inspiration, if not the signal, could only have come from Duterte, going down to the Office of the Solicitor General, which enlisted the SEC, which in turn held consultations with the Department of Justice. The chain of collusion is not denied.  

Duterte himself has not bothered to conceal his violent displeasure at Rappler's reporting and opinion making; every time he voices it he does so cussing. He was in fact the first to accuse Rappler of foreign ownership; in no less public an occasion than his nationally televised State of the Nation Address in midyear last year, he claimed that Rappler "is fully owned by Americans."

Again, the not-too-subtle hint was picked up down the line. Rappler reporter Pia Ranada says that, as a matter of course, she is given the "mean treatment" on the presidential beat. But the meanness does not stop her.

Nor does it stop Rappler. It continues to operate, and intends to fight the SEC judgment "all the way up to the Supreme Court," says Rappler founder and CEO Maria Ressa, who contends that SEC mistakenly applied the provision on "depositary receipts". That financial instrument, says Ressa, citing precedents, allows a corporation to accept investments without ceding any measure of ownership, making an investor's nationality irrelevant.

In any case, the violation is something that can be easily rectified and surely does not call for such extreme sanction as shutting down a business, let alone one that performs a critical public service. But, then, that option is too reasonable and too benign to fit into the presidential agenda.

Indeed, how can Duterte's hand be overlooked in the Rappler affair — it's the elephant in the room!

Duterte is the type who cannot abide dissent. It's all part of his "antisocial narcissistic personality", a diagnosis that has been a matter of public record since his wife took him to court for the annulment of their marriage, and won.

As an autocratic mayor of his provincial home city of Davao, down south, for more than two decades, Duterte could only have carried the habits, predispositions, and other compulsions indulged by his sycophantic underlings. It was relatively easy, naturally, for a potentate like him to have his high-handed way in a sociopolitical setting where patronage is the operating culture.

That he has been able to operate in about the same way as president, and yet remains popular — if the polls are to be believed — only reveals the nation's debased sense of moral and political values.

A monthly average of nearly a thousand are killed in his war on drugs — mostly by vigilantes, the police always claim, as if they were operating on different sponsorships or inspirations.

A senator has been thrown in jail not only on the testimonies of life convicts but on charges the state has yet to determine.

The chief justice is being dragged through the process of impeachment in Congress on a complaint brought by an obscure lawyer who, admittedly, simply heard things.

To be sure, these crimes go beyond personal assaults; these are assaults on the rule of law and human rights, on political freedom, and on judicial independence.

And the assault on Rappler is an assault on press freedom.

If all that does not constitute murder of democracy, I don't know what does. – Rappler.com

The lecherous sexual predator. The sexual bully who alternately uses pressure and affection to weasel his way into your pants. The bumbling sexual klutz who doesn’t know what to do with his hands or other body appendages. The Casanova who makes your back arch and your toes curl.

Every woman who has ventured into today’s loose, murky dating jungle has met one or all of the above men.

The dating/hook up scene amped by technology and put into overdrive by dating apps has set up a scenario where the foreplay for a romantic interlude is built on SMS and doesn’t always live up to real life expectations.

That’s why the New Yorker’s "Cat Person" and the Aziz Ansari stories have gone viral – precisely because they are so relatable. Every dating woman, at one point or another, has found herself in that situation: that uncomfortable, uneasy point where you thought you wanted to have sex but changed your mind or sex was awkward or unpleasant but she went through with it anyway for whatever reason. It could be a sense of shame ("Cat Person") or some feeling of threat to your personal safety that the encounter could escalate into something more if you didn’t have sex so you just chose the lesser of two evils (Aziz Ansari).

It can be anything that can trigger that change of heart. Maybe he was a bad kisser. Maybe he didn’t take off his socks before took off his pants and the comical sight just left with you a feeling of dismay. Maybe he had body hair where he shouldn’t have body hair – or worse, body odor. Maybe his attempt at sexy talk was littered with grammatical errors. Whatever. You get the picture. There are many reasons why you want to keep your best performance underwear to yourself.

Throw this all too real scenario and the #MeToo movement plus the many conversations it has sparked together and you have every woman re-examining her hook up history and asking herself: was it sexual assault or was it bad sex?

It isn’t an easy question to ask yourself or get answers to especially with confusing alternative voices moving the goalposts on consent and this white feminist view from French women that all women are perfectly capable of saying NO to a weird sexual encounter, calling a cab and getting her home as quickly as possible so she can shower.

Comedian Samantha Bee put it best when she said: Women can tell the difference between a rapist, a sexual predator and an Aziz Ansari but we don’t have to be happy with any of them.

Precisely because any form of sexual harassment or sexual coercion is traumatizing and simply unacceptable.

Some men need an education. Some men need prison.

To make this clearer. There are sexual behaviors that – no matter what era, what circumstance, what setting – are just criminal. Masturbating in front of a woman, appearing in nothing but a bath robe and asking for a massage are right up that alley.

Men like Harvey Weinstein need prison but men like the sexual bully who only thinks of his own gratification, the sexual klutz and all those in between need re-education.

The #MeToo movement highlighted the urgent need for that re-education to take place, starting with the basics.

Consent

One of my most favorite think pieces on the #MeToo movement is about the need for empathy in sexual relations. That means being attuned to your partner’s needs and reactions and reading them at every stage of your date. Tedious, you might say. But necessary and also normal since you are both still feeling each other out and getting to know one another.

Empathy highlights the need for consent.

Consent and the need for it hasn’t changed. There are no shortcuts to consent. It must be enthusiastically given. Every. Single. Time. Accepting an invitation out on a date or to someone’s apartment isn’t an all access pass to sex. Also, this apparently needs to be spelled out: Just because a woman has sex with you once, it doesn’t automatically mean she will again.  

Fuck like a feminist

Again, quoting Front Frontal host Samantha Bee, “If you label yourself a feminist, fuck like a feminist”. That to me, means pushing for gender equality in the bedroom starting with recognizing that women can and do want to have sex just as much as men do. As so wonderfully stated in this VOX article: sex is for women, too.

Sex is not something men take and women give. Sex is not a game where wearing down a woman’s resistance through bullying or intimidation constitutes “winning”. Pleasure and sexual satisfaction are equal and mutual pursuits and the parameters around them like condom use, sexual boundaries and personal quirks and preferences need to be negotiated and agreed on.

#MeToo in the Philippines

In the Philippines, what would have ushered in our own #MeToo movement when sexual harassment in the indie music scene and the art world was exposed, feel short. What started out as a revelation of an open secret and what many hoped would turn into our own conversation about sexual boundaries and consent fell into an cavernous silence.

It is disappointing but not entirely surprising considering that the only sex education we get is that sex is bad and that boys will want it and it is up to girls to make sure they don’t get it.

We have a long way to go before we even reach the stage of admitting to ourselves that sex is pleasurable and that the main reason people have it is because it feels good. But maybe we can start by acknowledging that sex is a mutual exchange where two consenting adults can chose to have sex and be assertive in negotiating sexual relations.

And when we say we two consenting adults, that includes women. – Rappler.com

Hanggang nitong ilang linggo lang ang nakakaraan, hindi ko inakala na hindi pa pala ang Mamasapano ang huling trahedyang ipinamana ng administrasyong Aquino. Kung ang Mamasapano ay resulta ng geopolitics at barkadahang pamumuno ni Presidente Benigno Aquino III, ang iskandalo sa Dengvaxia naman ay pakikipagniig ng barkadahan at ng maruming laro ng industriya ng gamot.

Nalinis na ang dating narungisan na pangalan ni Enrique Ona, ang health secretary bago si Janette Garin. Isa si Ona sa maituturing na tunay na propesyonal sa adiministrasyong Aquino. Alam ko ito dahil bilang kinatawan noon sa Kongreso, isa ako sa mga nagtatanong tuwing budget hearing, at kay Ona lamang ako nakakakuha ng diretsong sagot, bukod kay Babes Singson na dating kalihim ng public works. Si Ona ay isang tunay na propesyonal, na ang hangarin ay makapagtatag ng mahusay na sistemang pangkalusugan na tulad ng sa Thailand.

Malabong maganap ang Sanofi deal sa ilalim ni Ona. Sinabi niya, noong siya pa ang kalihim ay bumibisita nga ang mga kinatawan ng Sanofi sa Department of Health. Gustong magbigay ng mga ito ng briefing sa kagawaran tungkol sa bakuna, na noo’y di pa ganap na aprubado. Hindi niya naramdamang dinidiinan siyang bumili ng bakuna kahit nasa developmental stage pa lang, sabi ni Ona. Alam din siguro ng Sanofi na hindi makukumbinsi si Ona na bilhin nang di pa tapos ang clinical test para matiyak na talagang ligtas ang bakuna na kilala pa noon bilang CYD-TVD. Wala sa isinumiteng badyet ng 2016 ang pambili ng bakuna.

Noong 2017, isa sa pinakamalaking item ito sa badyet sa ilalim ni Janette Garin, ang pumalit kay Ona.

Pagtatakpo ng propesyonal at politiko

Ang tanging pagkakamali ni Ona ay ang pagiging bagito niya sa pulitika. Dahil nakatrabaho niya sa ang dating kongresistang si Garin sa pagpapasa ng reproductive health bill, hindi siya nagdalawang-isip na irekomenda si Garin na maging isa sa kanyang mga undersecretary. Isa ring doktor si Garin. Natapos na ang termino ni Garin sa Kongreso noong 2013, at di na uli puwedeng tumakbo. Sinuportahan niya si Garin bilang undersecretary dahil inaasahan niyang susuporta din ito sa kanyang itinitulak na universal health insurance; maaaring makatulong ang pagiging malapit ni Garin sa Malacañang.

Nakatrabaho ko rin si Garin sa pagtutulak na maipasa ang RH bill, at dahil dito ay may nabuo akong respeto para sa kanya. Pero alam ko rin na siya ay isang “smooth operator,” ayon nga sa kanta ni Sade. May ambisyon siya sa politika, at bilang politiko mabilis siyang naglipat ng kanyang "katapatan" kay Aquino mula kay GMA pagkatapos ng eleksyon ng 2010.

Agad na natunugan ng mga staff ni Ona na ang puntirya ni Garin ay ang puwesto ni Ona, at di nga sila nagkamali. Unti-unting nabuksan ang mga mata ni Ona sa realidad na ito, ngunit hindi niya pa rin nakuhang kuwestyunin ang mga motibo ni Garin. Noong nawala na ang PDAF noong 2014, ipinatipon ni Garin sa kanyang opisina ang mga di nagastos na PDAF; ibinigay niya ito sa mga miyembro ng Kongreso. Tinutulan ito ni Ona, na ikinagalit ni Garin, kaya’t hindi niya sinuportahan ang agenda para universal health care. Sa halip, nagsimulang magpakalat si Garin ng mga walang-basehang alegasyon na na pangungurakot sa ilalim ni Ona. 

Nakapasok si  Garin sa barkadahan ni PNoy na kinabibilangan nina Budget Secretary Abad, Executive Secretary Jojo Ochoa, at Cabinet Secretary Rene Almendras. Kay Garin nakikinig si PNoy sa halip na kay Ona. “Hindi ko makuhang makinig nang seryoso sa akin si President tungkol sa universal health care, kahit minsan lang sa loob ng 4 at kalahating taon ng panunungkulan ko,” sabi sa akin ni Ona. (Pamilyar sa akin ang ganitong karanasan dahil sa pakikipagpulong ko sa Presidente noon para sabihin ang pag-aalala ko sa posibleng korapsyon ni Secretary Abad dahil sa pagpapalakad niya sa Disbursement Acceleration Program o DAP, kung anu-ano rin ang gusto niyang pag-usapan at hindi ang pakay ko.)

Pag-alis sa bangin ng mga ahas

Nang malaman ni Ona na binaliktad ni Ochoa ang desisyon niya na alisin ang isang pinuno ng isang regional medical center dahil sa korapsyon, naisip niyang bilang na ang mga araw niya. At nang mabalitaan niyang dahil sa sulsol si Garin ay pinaiimbistigahan siya ni Aquino sa NBI, alam niyang ikukudeta na siya. Nang kumpirmahin ni Justice Secretary Leila de Lima na iniimbestigahan nga siya, naisip ni Ona na ang pinakamarapat gawin ay magbitiw sa puwesto at lisanin ang lugar o bangin ng mga ahas. Ang tanging pagkakamali niya ay di niya nilagyan ng salitang “irrevocable” ang kanyang resignation letter kay Ochoa, para naging malinaw sa lahat na siya ang kusang nagbitiw at hindi siya sinibak ng Malacañang, at na ginawa niya ito bilang protesta sa pang-aapi sa kanya.

Nang pumalit nang kalihim si Garin, nawala na rin ang mga usap-usapan tungkol sa umano'y korapsyon ni Ona. Nagpatuloy na rin si Garin na baliktarin lahat ng mga desisyon ni Ona para itatag ang universal health care – tulad ng planong palawakin ang benepisyo ng primary health care sa ilalim ng Philhealth. Inilipat ni Garin ang pondo sa sarili niyang proyekto, tulad ng pagkuha ng 20,000 asssistants at pagbili ng overpriced “dental buses.” Hindi lohikal ang ganitong mga bus kung titingnan ang pangangailangan ng publiko. Ang pinagsisilbihan ng ganitong proyekto ay political na interes, lalo na para sa eleksyon ng 2016 noon. Kinuha rin ni Garin ang kontrol sa Food and Drug Administration, na hindi pinakikialaman ng lahat ng nakalipas na kalihim para mapangalagaan ang interes at integridad ng ahensya.

Ang pinakamasamang naganap ay ang paglakas ng lobby ng Sanofi sa loob ng departamento. Dinala pa nila si Garin sa headquarters nila sa Paris upang makumbinsing bumili ng bakunang Dengvaxia kahit pa nga di pa nakakakuha ng endorsement ng mga internasyonal na awtoridad sa larangan ng medisina. Nakumbinsi rin ni Garin si Presidente Aquino na makipagkita sa mga opisyal ng Sanofi sa kabila nang mahigpit nitong iskedyul noong nasa kumperensya sa climate change noong Disyembre 2015.

Paghinto ng karera sa merkado

Pinatindi noon ng Sanofi ang pangungumbinsi dahil marahil ay natatakot itong maunahan sa pagbebenta ng dengue vaccine ng mga korporasyon sa US na nakakaungos na sa binubuong bakuna; mauuna ang mga ito na makuha ang pag-abruba ng Center for Disease Control (CDC) ng US.  Makikita nga sa CDC website na may 5 anti-dengue vaccines noon na pinag-aaralan at ginagawa, at dalawa rito ay nasa abanteng estado na: ang TAK003 ng Takeda Corporation at Merck, at ang TV003 ng US National Institute of Health. 

Habang tumitindi ang pressure kina Aquino at Garin, patuloy naman ang babala ng mga awtoridad sa medisina laban sa paggamit ng hindi pa subok na bakuna. Isang pag-aaral na maraming awtor ang lumabas sa prestihiyosong New England Journal of Medicine (Vol. 373, No. 13, Setyembre 24, 2015), at nagsabing, ayon sa mga clinical trial, mas tumaas ang panganib na magka-dengue ang mga batang nabakunahan nang hindi pa nagkaka-dengue, kaysa sa mga dati nang nagka-dengue nang tumanggap ng bakuna. 

Sa katunayan, dahil sa matinding pagkabahala ng mga editor ng journal, kasabay ng artikulo ay naglabas sila ng sariling editoryal na pinamagatang “A Candidate Vaccine Walks a Tightrope.” Parang kidlat na tumama ang editoryal sa larangan ng pagsasaliksik sa dengue: “Ang pinakanakakatawag-pansin ay ang suhestiyon na ang CYD-TVC (Dengvaxia) ay maiuugnay sa pagtaas ng panganib na maospital dahil sa dengue ang mga batang may edad 9 (mas mataas pa ang panganib ng mga batang may edad dalawa hanggang 5 taong gulang) kapag sila ay nagkaroon dengue sa natural na paraan sa ikatlong taon pagkatapos ng pagbabakuna.”

Ang konklusyon ng editoryal: “Kulang pa kami sa matibay na ebidensya tungkol sa mga kakabit na sakit o panganib na dala ng bakuna. Isang di katanggap-tanggap na epekto ng bakuna ay ang pagbaba ng immunity ng makakatanggap nito. Dapat ay matibay ang epekto ng bakuna sa pagpapalakas ng immunity ng pasyente na di pa nagkakaroon ng dengue at iyong nagkaroon na… Ang mabatong daan tungo sa isang solusyon na bakuna ay nagpapatuloy." 

Para kay Ona, ang pag-aaral at editoryal ay isang stop sign sa paggamit ng Dengvaxia. “Para sa isang propesyonal na mediko at opisyal ng gobyerno gaya ni Garin, obligasyon ang pagbasa ng ganitong artikulo, lalo na’t sinabayan ito ng isang kritikal na editoryal,” sabi ni Ona. “Malinaw na hindi pa handa ang bakuna para sa malawakang paggamit, lalung-lao na sa paggastos ng  tatlong bilyong piso para sa pagbakuna sa mahigit 800,000 bata. Ang halagang ginastos dito ay mas malaki pa sa buong budget ng DOH para sa immunization.” 

Ayon kay Ona, kalahati ng 20 awtor ng nasabing report ay mga tagapagsaliksik sa Sanofi mismo. “Tila sinasabi ng mga siyentista nila na hindi pa handang gamitin ang bakuna,” sabi niya. Iba ang pananaw ng nasa marketing ng Sanofi dahil handa na itong isara noon ang deal sa Pilipinas kahit may agam-agam ang sariling mga siyentista.

Pinabilis ni Garin ang mga bagay-bagay

May sarili ring agam-agam ang mga awtoridad sa medisina sa Pilipinas tungkol sa panganib ng Dengvaxia. Sa mga pagdinig kamakailan sa Senado, narinig ang pagkabahala ng mga ekspertong Fillipino noon dahil nga sa kakulangan pa ng sapat na clinical testing. Ngunit naganap pa rin ang pagbili rito at paggamit nito, at ayon nga kay Dr Kenneth Hartigan-Go na dating pinuno ng FDA, politikal na desisyon mula sa itaas na bilhin ang bakuna. Malaki ang naging papel ng FDA na bigyan ng Formulary Executive Council (FEC) ng exemption ang bakuna kahit pa nga walang ebalwasyon para maisama ito sa Philippine National Drug Formulary (PNDF). Matatandaang nasa ilalim na ng direktang kontrol ni Garin ang FDA, na dati-rati’y halos hiwalay na ahensya sa DOH.

Sa pagdinig ding ito kamakailan sa Senado, napag-alamang may malaki nang budget para sa Dengvaxia noong 2017 kahit di pa ito nakalista sa PNDF. Ayon kay Dr Melissa Guerrero, pinuno ng FEC, ngayon lang siya nakakita ng mabilis na pag-apruba ng alokasyon para sa isang gamot.

Sa maikling salita, nagmamadali ang Sanofi na maibenta ang bakuna, may pagmamadali rin noon sa bahagi ng Pilipinas na maisara ang deal. Ang resulta ay ang tinatawag ni Ona na “bangungot pangkalusugan” para sa bansa.

May nabayaran ba? 

Ayon kay Ona, mula sa pananaw ng isang propesyonal, walang matibay na dahilan para gamitin na ang bakuna, kaya’t “maaaring may ibang factor na gumalaw dito.”  Nang tanungin ko siya kung may binayaran kayang mga tao, ang sagot pa rin niya – bilang isang tunay na propesyonal – ay wala siyang kakayanan para sagutin ito, at dapat iwan na lang sa mga awtoridad ang paghanap ng sagot.

Napakahalaga na maimbestigahan ang nangyaring ito. Sabi ni Ona ang pagdedesisyon ay huminto kay Garin at hindi kay Aquino, dahil tungkulin ng kalihim ng DOH na bigyan ng payo ang presidente sa mga isyu tungkol sa pampublikong kalusugan. Ngunit dapat maisama sa mga taong may responsibilidad sa nangyari sina Aquino at kroni niyang si Butch Abad. Isang malaking korporasyon ang nagmadaling isara ang deal sa gobyerno ng Pilipinas, hanggang sa puntong napapunta nito ang Presidente sa kanilang headquarters – dapat ay nakita nina Aquino at Abad na lalong kailangan ng masusing pag-aaral dito. Puwera na lang kung may naging dahilan para hindi nila tingnan ang nagaganap noon.

Mahalagang imbestigahan kung may naganap na bayaran sa desisyon sa Dengvaxia dahil ginawa ito nang mag-eeleksiyon na ang bansa noon. Desperado noon sa paghahanap ng pondo ang Liberal Party, at ipinamalas na ng partido na kaya nitong balewalain ang matitino sa kanilang hanay para lamang makakuha ng pondo sa mga tulad ni Lilia Pineda, gobernador ng Pampanga at asawa ng tinaguriang hari ng jueteng na si Bong Pineda. Maaaring pinagkunan ng pondo para sa kampanya ang Sanofi.

Isang malaking kalokohan 

Sa tingin ni Ona ito ay malaking kalokohan nang suspindihin ang pagbebenta at gamit ng Dengvaxia kamakailan at pagpapataw ng maliit na multang P100,000 sa Sanofi. “Hindi biro ito para sa 800,000 mga bata na nabigyan ng bakuna,” sabi niya. “Isipin mo na lang ang pinagdaraanan ng mga magulang ng mga batang ito na akala nila ay mabibigyan ng proteksyon ang mga anak nila sa dengue, ayun pala’y mas lalo pang tumaas ang panganib. Napakakumplikado at magastos na sundan ang magaganap sa mga batang ito para alamin ang kung sino at ilan ang namatay dahil sa bakuna, at para tiyakin na ang alam nilang lahat ang epekto ng bakuna nang sa gayon ay makagawa ng hakbang.” May alam si Ona na kaso ng isang batang namatay at tiyak niya na pinataas ng bakuna ang naging panganib sa dengue.

Sa kasamaang-palad, mahina ang parusa para sa mga krimen ng mga korporasyong tulad ng Sanofi – kadalasan ay multa lamang at di pagpapakulong sa mga opisyal nito or pagtanggal kaya ng mandato ng korporasyon. Isang araw marahil magkakaroon tayo ng International Criminal Court para sa mga krimen ng mga korporasyon, ngunit ngayon ay malaya pa ring nakakakilos ang mga korporasyong pirata tulad ng Sanofi. Maaaring mawala ang merkado ng Sanofi para sa bakuna dahil sa iskandalo, pero hindi ito sapat na parusa sa ganito katinding krimen. 

Hindi man natin mahahabol ang Sanofi, puwede nating pagbayarin sa kasalanan ang kanilang mga lokal na partner dito. HIndi na natin kakayanin muli ang ganitong nakamamatay na pagtatagpo ng politika ng gobyernong barkadahan at ang kasakiman ng isang korporasyon. – Rappler.com

Basahin dito ang bersiyon sa Ingles.

Ang pagbibitiw ni Walden Bello sa Kongreso ang natatanging naitalang pagbibitiw ayon sa prinsipyo, dahil sa pagkakaiba ng paniniwala niya kay Presidente Benigno Aquino III sa isyu nga Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), sa trahedyang naganap sa raid sa Mamasapano, sa Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement sa US. Nagsilbi siya sa Kapulungan ng mga Representante mula 2009 hanggang 2015, at limang taong naging Tagapamuno ng Committee on Overseas Workers’Affairs. Isa siya sa mga prinsipal na awtor ng Reproductive Health Act.

Mahal naming Millennial,

Bakit ba papansin ang Rappler sa gusot na pinasok nito? Eh ano ngayon kung masarhan kayo?

Makinig ka Millennial, dahil hindi malayo sa bituka mo ang bantang pagpapasara ng kahit na anong pahayagan o news organization sa Pilipinas.

Talakayin muna natin ang umano’y paglabag sa Konstitusyon ng Rappler.

Malaking kalokohang tawaging veto power ang iginawad ng Rappler Holdings Corporation, na siyang nagmamay-ari sa Rappler, sa mga Philippine Depositary Receipt holders katulad ng Omidyar Network.

Kahit papaano bali-baligtarin, walang karapatang magmay-ari o magdikta ang mga maytangan ng PDR tulad ng Omidyar Network dahil 100% Pilipino ang pagmamay-ari ng Rappler.  (Narito ang listahan ng madalas na itanong tungkol sa Rappler.)

Ayon sa paliwanang ng mga abogado ng Rappler katulad ni Francis Lim, ang linya sa papeles ng Omidyar na nagsasabing dapat nitong aprubahan ang mga pagbabago sa kumpanya ay pagtitiyak lamang na mapoprotektahan ang investment nito sa parent company ng Rappler. Kung sakaling magdesisyon ang Rappler na biglang magbago ng uri ng business, maaaring umalis ang Omidyar o kolektahin ang katumbas na halaga ng PDRs nito.

Walang ibinigay o ibinentang control sa Omidyar, na walang pakialam sa pang-araw-araw na pamamalakad ng Rappler o sa mga desisyong may kinalaman sa mga report o istoryang sinusulat o ibinobrodkast nito. 

Naninindigan ang Rappler na labis-labis ang kaparusahan sa ibinibintang ng Securities and Exchange Commission na di-umano'y paglabag ng online site. Sa kaso ng isang makapangyarihang telco, binigyan ito ng mahabang panahon upang ituwid ang pagkakamali. Ang hatol sa Rappler? Isara ‘yan.

Magbubulag-bulagan ba tayo at kalilimutan na binanggit ni Presidente Rodrigo Duterte noong SONA ng 2017 ang Rappler? Hindi ba siya ang unang nag-akusa na di-umano’y pagmamay-ari ito ng mga Amerikano?

Inuulit namin: 100% Pilipino ang nagmamay-ari sa Rappler at ang kalakhan ng shares nito ay tangan ng mga journalist ng kumpanya. Hindi ba't dapat itong ipagbunyi dahil masisiguradong mga journalist ang may control sa kumpanya?

Kagalang-galang na institusyon ang SEC pero manhid ba ito sa nakanginginig na ihip ng hangin ng pulitika? 

Lalo na kung ang Presidente mismo ang nangunguna sa pagbanat sa mga pinuno tulad ng Ombudsman at Chief Justice ng Korte Suprema? At sa isang salita niya’y di nalalayo ang atake ng mga alagang asong ulol sa social media at mga kakamping kolumnista?

Paano ipaliliwanag ang mabilis pa sa alas-singkong tugon ng Department of Justice na utusan ang National Bureau of Investigation na imbestigahan hindi lamang ang PDRs kundi pati na rin"kahit na anong krimen" ng kumpanya? 

Hindi ba't ang pangalawang nakaambang kaso ng cyber libel laban sa Rappler ay malinaw na pattern ng panggigipit? Malinaw na patunay ito ng fishing expedition ng NBI na handang ipukol pati na ang lababo sa Rappler.

Hindi ba't harrassment ang kasong biglang sumulpot tungkol sa isang istorya noong 2012, sa panahong di pa naipapasa ang Cybercrime Law? Nagkakabuhol-buhol na rin ang dila ng mga opisyal ng NBI na nagpipilit na ang teorya ng "continuous publication" ay swak sa bagong kaso ng Rappler. 

Ayon kay Presidential Spokesman Harry Roque, hindi ito usapin ng press freedom. Talaga, Secretary? Hindi ba't ang economic attacks at corporate take-downs ang pangunahing modus ng maraming diktador laban sa media? Pangunahin na rito ang paboritong bro ni Duterte na si Russian President Vladimir Putin at ang iniidolo niyang si Ferdinand Marcos?

Attorney Roque, ang tawag po diyan ay "prior restraint" o baka naman nakalimutan niyo na ang natutunan sa human rights community sa maikling panahon bilang spokesman? Basahin po niyo ang pahayag ng dati niyong law firm. 

Mabalik tayo sa unang tanong. Why should you care, our dear Millennials? 

Mabalisa tayo dahil ang pamahalaang gumagamit ng corporate take-downs upang busalan ang mga tumutuligsa dito ay hindi mag-aatubiling sagasaan ang karapatan ng pangkaraniwang mamamayan.

Matakot tayo dahil manipestasyon ito ng pagkalasing sa kapangyarihan. Matakot tayo dahil ang balat sibuyas na pinuno ay ‘di kikilala ng kanyang pagkakamali.

Maalarma tayo dahil ang media, sa kabila ng mga kahinaan at kasalanan nito, ang nananatiling panangga ng mamamayan laban sa abusado at kurapt na pulitiko.

Higit sa lahat, ang pagkitil sa malayang pamamahayag ay magpapakitid ng kalayaan mong magpahayag. Ang dagok sa mga truth-teller ay dagok sa kalayaan ng mamamayang panagutin ang mga pinunong kanilang ibinoto. Dagok din ito sa karapatan ng mamamayang malaman ang katotohanan, higit sa propaganda ng gobyerno.

‘Wag nating bigyang kapangyarihan ang mga bully, lalo na kung ito ay ang sarili nating gobyerno. 

Kumatok na sila sa pinto ng 7,000 libong drug suspects, at alam n'yo na kung saan pinulot ang kanilang mga bangkay. 

‘Wag nating hayaang makandaduhan ang malayang pamamahayag. – Rappler.com