"Hello, I'm Jee, a reporter for Rappler, an online news site," I said, stuttering a bit while extending my hand for a handshake.

In my nervousness, I introduced myself the usual way I would with sources I meet for the first time. I couldn't bring myself to say "annyeonghaseyo," afraid that I'd say it wrongly even after years of greeting my Korean drama-loving friends that way.

I wasn't sure if he even understood what I said, but that's not important, I thought. I was sitting in front of Ji Soo, and I only have a few minutes to interview him. Whether or not he knows my name was the least of my concerns.

What I also couldn't tell Ji Soo during that brief encounter was that I'm one of his biggest fans.

I've been a Korean drama fan since 2008, the year I started consuming Asian television shows regularly because of better access to them.

My taste in Korean dramas or K-dramas have changed through the years: I loved every minute of the hot mess that was Boys Before Flowers, even attending Kim Hyun Joong's 2010 concert here in the Philippines because I was obviously #TeamJiHoo.

Come 2012, however, I found myself watching one excellent show after another (Read: Answer Me 1997, Queen In Hyun's Man, Shut Up: Flower Boy Band, and Arang and the Magistrate). Since then, I just couldn't settle anymore for mediocre shows.

I picked up Angry Mom in 2015 because of the hilarious promos: It's a coming-of-age comedy starring an ajumma – a married woman or a middle-aged lady – who disguises herself as a high-schooler to protect her daughter from school bullies.

The show itself turned out to be darker than I expected as it tackled the issue of school bullying in South Korea, but what I'd remember the most about the drama was the scene-stealer and rookie actor Ji Soo.

I've seen most of his Korean dramas after Angry Mom, but Ji Soo played supporting roles in all of them except for the 3-episoder Page Turner. That's why his Filipino fans call him "Pambansang (National) Second Lead."

I don't know about other fans, but what turned me into a huge Ji Soo fan isn't his boyish charm, or that deep voice of his.

What I love about him is that he's shown time and again that he's more than just a pretty face. Ji Soo has grown so much as an actor in the last 3 years since Angry Mom, playing every role with gusto, regardless if it's a supporting role or not.

I sat down with Ji Soo after his press conference with Filipino reporters and 3 one-on-one interviews with other media outlets.

Perhaps because I've watched a lot of his dramas, I expected a bright and bubbly Ji Soo to walk through the door; instead, he maintained a quiet demeanor throughout the interviews, although his face would occasionally light up whenever he talks about his fans. 

During our short interview, I asked Ji Soo about his latest drama, Bad Guys: City of Evil. I haven't seen the drama yet, but just the thought of Ji Soo in an action drama excites me.

I asked him how different it was to prepare for a romantic comedy and for an action drama. He answered in Korean: "More than anything, the genre was not the usual one. So I had to get used to doing action. It was a lot of physical activity, and the genre is new to me, so most of all I think I really had to practice doing action."

Ji Soo added, "The character was also new for me. So I really had to do a lot of preparations on how I should project myself to portray the character's image out." 

But in his press conference, Ji Soo admitted that he is most comfortable playing roles he can relate to and characters his age. 

His dream role? To play characters in movies or dramas that are based on a true story. He said he wants to play a lot of different roles and grow more as an actor.

I said a brief "thank you" to Ji Soo before leaving the interview room, but not without a selfie to commemorate the day.

{source}<center>

<blockquote class="instagram-media" data-instgrm-captioned data-instgrm-permalink="https://www.instagram.com/p/Be_7uGXgvs0/" data-instgrm-version="8" style=" background:#FFF; border:0; border-radius:3px; box-shadow:0 0 1px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.5),0 1px 10px 0 rgba(0,0,0,0.15); margin: 1px; max-width:658px; padding:0; width:99.375%; width:-webkit-calc(100% - 2px); width:calc(100% - 2px);"><div style="padding:8px;"> <div style=" background:#F8F8F8; line-height:0; margin-top:40px; padding:50% 0; text-align:center; width:100%;"> <div style=" background:url(); display:block; height:44px; margin:0 auto -44px; position:relative; top:-22px; width:44px;"></div></div> <p style=" margin:8px 0 0 0; padding:0 4px;"> <a href="https://www.instagram.com/p/Be_7uGXgvs0/" style=" color:#000; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px; text-decoration:none; word-wrap:break-word;" target="_blank">Started from &#39;Angry Mom&#39; now we&#39;re here.</a></p> <p style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px; margin-bottom:0; margin-top:8px; overflow:hidden; padding:8px 0 7px; text-align:center; text-overflow:ellipsis; white-space:nowrap;">A post shared by <a href="https://www.instagram.com/jeegeronimo/" style=" color:#c9c8cd; font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; font-style:normal; font-weight:normal; line-height:17px;" target="_blank"> Jee Y. Geronimo</a> (@jeegeronimo) on <time style=" font-family:Arial,sans-serif; font-size:14px; line-height:17px;" datetime="2018-02-10T02:12:04+00:00">Feb 9, 2018 at 6:12pm PST</time></p></div></blockquote> <script async defer src="//www.instagram.com/embed.js"></script>

</center>{/source}

I walked away coolly, but the fangirl in me was screaming internally. Meeting Ji Soo in the flesh made me an even bigger fan of his. Rest assured, I will be waiting for his next project with bated breath. – Rappler.com

In the light of the recent reported Oxfam controversy involving several cases of sexual misconduct, any social development worker or aid worker would feel affected by it. There were allegations of procuring sevices of local prostitutes. Even worse, however, is what is believed a cover-up of the allegation by higher-ranking officials in the Oxfam hierarchy. This is a saddening news for any self-respecting and committed development worker due to their nature of the job, the responsibilities it entails, and the expectations that go with it.

This incident makes us think about being in this kind of profession – a profession that not only demands technical knowledge and expertise but also humanitarian values and the will to serve. Development workers have an enormous privilege accorded to them by their beneficiary communities. This takes form in the trust given to them by local residents when they accept them as cooperators in addressing local and pressing social issues. 

Being an aid worker 

They let them into their lives in the hopes of resolving the complicated web of problems of poverty, health, environmental concerns, among others. But more than the trust given by the community is the privilege of service – of being put in a situation where one’s professional abilities is directed towards helping others. (READ: Oxfam unveils action plan after 'stain' of sex scandal) 

This is the kind of privilege embedded in being a development worker because it is through helping others that one also grow and develop as a person.

Exploiting this privilege for one’s selfish gratification is totally wrong. Given the nature of humanitarian work, it is an imperative that the job falls on people who seriously have the mind and heart for service.

Following the scandal, Oxfam’s Regional Director for Asia, Lan Mercado has expressed in a television interview that she welcomes scrunity into Oxfam’s activities. She maintained that policies and procedures must be even more strengthened and that Oxfam will roll out more efforts to address the organizational culture that makes women and children vulnerable to objectification and exploitation. She emphasized that Oxfam’s efforts along this line would be a continuing agenda.

Such efforts within aid and charity initiatives must be seriously in the humanitarian world. It is never too late for any organization to work on this internal organizational culture and develop a code of conduct for personnel especially when they are out in the field.

Moving forward 

The Oxfam fiasco has opened the gate for more NGOs to look internally into their code of conduct. An external viewpoint that takes into consideration the situation in the community and understand existing local cultures before projects are implemented is also necessary in understanding context and developing paradigms.

The term being politically correct is a rather overused and worn-out lingo in this field of work but its significance as a guidepost for professional conduct has never been more warranted in these these critical times.

I remember being 20 and fresh from college in the 80s when I was hired as a researcher by an NGO working with farmers in rural communities in the Philippines. From time to time, there would be consultants and specialists sent by our so-called funders from organizations.

At a young age, I knew then that there seemed to be a marked difference on how we regard our foreign visitors but that difference quickly dissipated when we see how committed and passionate they are in bringing about productive results in their short term assignments.

As a young and idealist development worker groping and learning her way in the field, their presence lent, to some extent, a wealth of knowledge that the locality has benefitted from without sacrificing authenticity and integrity. There is also the important aspect of respect for cultural nuances and community characteristics between concerned parties which is another important factor in cooperation.

Such type of conduct, although unwritten, speaks loud in action and creates impact. Effortless or with much effort, there seems to be a general creed to be proper and politically correct along the lines of social development and humanitarian principles. That was of course in the 80s when social development work weighs in gold, when lines are much more defined and easier to pace.

While the field continuously evolves with the development of the times, it does not mean the basic values and principles of being social development agents have also changed. There are lessons to be learned, indeed.  We can start by looking into the so-called internal organizational culture – a rather tough nut to crack – and delve into it to make the improvements. – Rappler.com 

Tess Raposas is a freelance journalist/writer, a mother of two, and a sports enthusiast who loves to cook.

“Bakit mo gusto may makahati sa lugar na eksklusibong sa iyo?" Ito ang tugon ni Supreme Court Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio sa mga balita noong 2016 na magkakaroon ng joint exploration sa Reed Bank.

Ipinaliwanag ni Justice Carpio na sa ilalim ng Konstitusyon, bawal ang “joint development” sa loob ng exclusive economic zone o EEZ ng bansa.

Muling sumulpot ang issue ng joint exploration matapos magpulong ang mga opisyal ng Pilipinas at Tsina nitong Pebrero 13 para sa ikalawang bilateral consultation tungkol sa South China Sea o West Philippine Sea.

Eto rin ang nais naming itanong sa nakaupong kalihim ng Foreign Affairs. Bakit niya itinutulak ang joint exploration sa West Philippine Sea (South China Sea) sa kabila ng hamon sa kahalintulad na kaso sa Korte Suprema?

Nakabibingi ang katahimikan ng Pilipinas sa issue ng malawakang konstruksyon ng mga Intsik sa Panganiban o Mischief Reef. Walang kaduda-dudang bahagi ng EEZ ang reef batay na rin sa desisyon ng Permanent Court of Arbitration sa Netherlands.

Kamakailan din ay ipinagtanggol ni Cayetano ang pagbibigay ng permiso sa Tsina na mag-operate ng research vessel sa Benham Rise o Philippine Rise. Ang Benham Rise ay ang 13-milyong ektaryang underwater plateau na kinumpirma ng United Nations na bahagi ng continental shelf ng Pilipinas. Nasa ibang karagatan ito malayo sa South China Sea pero pati ito’y dinadayo ng mga Intsik.

Ayon kay Justice Carpio “kabobohan” ang pagbibigay ng access sa mga Intsik sa Philippine o Benham Rise.

Ayon sa mahistrado, kung hindi naman nirerespeto ng Beijing ang EEZ ng Pilipinas na nakasaad sa Hague, bakit natin ito bibigyan ng access sa nag-uumapaw na yaman ng impormasyon sa Benham Rise?

Lahat nito ay nauugat sa tatak ng diplomasya na pinaiiral sa ilalim ng administrasyong Duterte na inimplementa ng mga kalihim ng Department of Foreign Affairs – ang nagsinungaling sa kanyang citizenship na si Perfecto Yasay at ang master ng flip-flop na si Cayetano.

Paulit-ulit na sinasabi ni Cayetano na isang independent foreign policy ang kanyang ipinatutupad. Marahil nga, independyente sa Estados Unidos, pero nagpapaloko na tayo 'pag nilunok natin ang pahayag niyang “ito’y malayang polisiya sa panlabas na relasyon.”

Ano ang malaya sa pananahimik sa konstruksyon ng istrukturang militar sa West Philippine Sea?

Hindi ba’t tila maamong tupa ang bigyan ng permiso ang mga Intsik na pag-aralan ang Benham Rise sa kabila ng banggaan sa West Philippine Sea?

Hindi ba't pangangayupapa sa dragong Tsina ang ipagtanggol ang pagbibigay ng pangalan sa mga features ng Benham Rise ng mga Tsino? Paulit-ulit na sinasabi ng mga opisyal ng Pilipinas na makikinabang tayo sa research na ito. Hindi kami magtatataka kung ito'y mumong nalaglag sa hapag-kainan ng Beijing.

Ayon kay Gregory Poling ng Washington-based think tank CSIS, hindi immune sa pressure ang Tsina at hindi dapat maduwag ang Pilipinas na i-sanction ito. Dagdag pa ni Poling, “We've seen time and again that on specific instances where the Philippines or other claimants have presented the Chinese with a real choice – to use force or back off – they backed off.”

Matikas at palaban si Cayetano sa pagtatanggol sa kanyang amo sa larangang lokal, pero laging nakatiklop sa Tsina sa pandaigdigang entablado. Mas makikinabang daw ang Pilipinas sa pakikipagkaibigan sa mga Intsik kaysa sa pakikipag-away.

Tuluyan na bang tatalikuran ang soberanya at kasarinlan dahil sa pragmatismo? Hindi ba ito pagtataksil sa bayan?

Tinawag ito ni Rappler Editor-at-large Marites Vitug na “Stockholm syndrome.” Habang tinatakot ng bully, lalong bumibigay. 

Pagsasanla ng kasarinlan ang bagong diplomasyang Pinoy. – Rappler.com

At midnight on July 1, 1997, my home, Hong Kong, a territory of then 6 1/2 million people was handed over from Britain to the People’s Republic of China.  Almost 21 years later, we have come to a critical moment: promised democratic development has been totally stopped; the young generation in Hong Kong is under attack; and the autonomy and core values we have worked hard to preserve are in serious danger.

I am 79 years old, and have been working for 5 decades as a barrister and advocate for Hong Kong.  I have been the chairman of the Bar, an elected legislator, a pro-democracy political party founder, and a member of the Basic Law Drafting Committee, which drafted the mini-constitution for Hong Kong.  

In all of these roles, my goal has been to preserve Hong Kong’s freedoms, core values, and way of life through our rule of law and an independent judiciary.  My generation has fought hard.  But it is the future generation represented by 21-year old Joshua Wong – who was recently sent to prison twice for his involvement in the 2014 Umbrella Movement – and other young leaders such as Nathan Law, Alex Chow, Agnes Chow and Raphael Wong, who are even more adamant that their rights be absolutely preserved.  

For many decades Liberals around the globe have led support for Hong Kong, understanding that our values are aligned, and that Hong Kong is the best hope for seeing Liberal values take hold in the larger Mainland, China.  

The framework for the transfer of Hong Kong’s sovereignty and people was established by the 1984 Sino-British Joint Declaration, an international treaty registered at the United Nations.  In that treaty, which set out China’s “basic policies regarding Hong Kong”, we, the people of Hong Kong, were promised “one country, two systems”, and a “high degree of autonomy”.

Twenty years ago, the “one country” part of this agreement was implemented, when China assumed control over Hong Kong on July 1, 1997.  But Hong Kong people are still waiting for the “two systems” part to be fully implemented. Until we are masters of our own house through universal suffrage, “two systems” will never be a reality. And without genuine democratic elections, none of our freedoms is safe.

Let me be clear: Hong Kong people are not challenging Beijing. We are merely asking that China uphold her pledges to let us freely choose our leaders by universal suffrage as promised in the Basic Law, and exercise that “high degree of autonomy” already promised in the Joint Declaration as a condition for the handover of Hong Kong.  Nothing more, but certainly nothing less.   

But since June, 2014, when the Central Government published a White Paper in claiming that it has “comprehensive jurisdiction” over Hong Kong, there has been an acceleration of worrying encroachments which underline the urgent need for democratic elections to preserve basic rights and freedoms in our territory of 7 1/2 million people.  

This trend also spotlights the role of the UK, US, and the international community.  The UK, being a signatory to the Joint Declaration, has completely dropped the ball in defending rights and freedoms in Hong Kong, in order to foster, in the famous words of George Osborne, a “golden relationship with China”.  

The governments of many countries, including USA, Canada, Australia, and many other countries, all supported and still support the “one country, two systems” policy, and they undoubtedly owe the people of Hong Kong a moral obligation to speak up when our system is being changed unilaterally changed by Beijing.

China needs to return to Deng’s blueprint for the “two systems” which would require the much bigger and more powerful Mainland to accommodate the much smaller Hong Kong, like a man playing the seesaw game with his little son, who can only participate in the game if his much heavier father would move towards the center of the plank until an equilibrium is struck.

For a successful implementation of the one country two systems policy in Hong Kong will not only be a model for Taiwan, but also an incentive for our younger generations to stay and build on our successes.  

What better place to start building international confidence than Hong Kong—over which China’s pledges were made in the eyes of the world?  And what better time to start rebuilding confidence in Hong Kong with the full support of our people, both young and old? – Rappler.com

Martin Lee is the Founding Chairperson of Democratic Party of Hong Kong and a CALD Individual Member. This opinion piece is part of the Silver Lining Series written by members of the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD), an organization of liberal and democratic parties in Asia, to celebrate its 25th Anniversary this 2018.

This is the full text of the speech of Supreme Court Associate Justice Marvic Leonen during the Democracy and Disinformation forum at the Ateneo Law School on February 12. (READ: Leonen on holding the line: 'It involves knowing, critical analysis')

Thank you for the privilege to address your forum.

At the onset and for reasons that will be clear soon, allow me to clarify my standpoint.

My legal career before I was appointed to the judiciary mostly entailed working with groups who are mostly labelled as rural, indigenous or peasant. I have also worked with families of the disappeared and victims of human rights violations. I have made representations at various levels of courts including the Supreme Court as well as in various administrative bodies and in the halls of Congress.

For more than twenty years, I travelled to where they lived, literally traversing mountains in this country, crossing rivers, sleeping in huts or in shanties. Occasionally, we would find ways to find the logistics for them to be present in legal forums: in the halls of the Senate or Congress or the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, the Department of Agrarian Reform, and, sometimes, the Office of the President. They would appear before our trial courts. On several occasions, they were with me at the session hall as we argued their cases.

In my younger days, I thought that part of my vocation was to seek to be able to speak for them in legal and policy forums. I was to give them a voice translated into the language of the law ensuring that their rights are asserted and protected and monitoring that their interests are represented as new laws and regulations are drafted.

Communities, however, are complicated. They are not the ordinary clients of lawyers. They are unlike individuals, unlike cooperatives, unlike corporations.

Communities are multi-vocal. There are several groups, identities and sectors which speak from different standpoints even as they inherently reside in their common spaces. They always tend to be dynamic as there are always the interplay of the perspective, strategy and power within the community as well as the various sectors and groups that exist among them. They are always multi-dimensional since their cultures go through levels and phases of conflict and accommodation.

In every group or community, power makes its mark. Those who have it have their own complex bases of power. The interplay of power often defines the elite. They sustain and reflect the status quo. Culture contains, therefore, the powerful hegemonic view. The hegemonic view, however, is not entirely monolithic and not absolutely dominant. Culture will have its own versions of its own subversive elements. Vladimir Ilyich Lenin once remarked that “a new society is always born in the womb of an old one.”

What I understand with working with indigenous and peasant communities was that I could never really speak for them. I can only speak about them. When I speak about them, I relay a narrative of how I understood their lives and interests. Like every narrative, even if told with good intentions, it was never from a standpoint that was truly theirs. Gayatri Spivak, a celebrated historian, once asked through her essay: “Can the Sub-altern really Speak?” For many who have understood the complexity of community and society, the answer is indicatively obvious.

Even if we strive to be accurate, our narratives are never complete – no matter how collective we are. They are, and should always be, vulnerable and open to contestation. Words are the currency of narratives and their challenges. Words are colorful. They describe as well as perform. Open, robust and uninhibited discussion is rarely soothing. Democratic deliberation is not a guarantee of comfort. Given the inequality in our society and the stakes of those who benefit from the status quo: democratic deliberation is often brusque. I refer not only to the reaction of those in government to your speech but, likewise, those from fellow citizens whether they themselves are organized by powerful interests.

Rational democratic and egalitarian discussion, before they happen, therefore go through certain phases and reincarnations. They evolve and are reformed over and over again.

Many of you in the audience, however, know how it is to be the subject of the discomfort of the powerful, whether this be public officials or dominant economic players in our society. Today, this can also come from those who are what I call the culturally dominant. Roughly this includes the cyber bullies who use their popular status for nefarious ends.

By now you know that social media is generally crowd sourced speech of the owners of the platform. Internet companies and their forums are not entirely neutral conduits of content. They are businesses that wish to thrive and who have responsibilities to their stockholders. The space you use is not for free. You pay it dearly: at minimum with your privacy; at maximum with your addiction.

Social media grows because of our patronage. We empower it with every post, every like, every tweet, every retweet. It has the ability to inform. More dangerously, it also has the ability to erase attention, create digital amnesia and dull critical thinking. We have to be aware of all these and guard against them. The welfare of our society depends on that.

During the conversation with Peter [Greste], I have briefly outlined the constitutional architecture that protects your right to expression. The doctrines that have evolved are mostly to protect the rights to express vis-a-vis government and to limit the ability of government to stifle dissent. There are many occasions the court has played the role of checking this exercises of power while clarifying the various nuances of the Constitutional provisions on freedom of expression. There are, however, many more cases where it took some time – or is taking some time – for the Court to acknowledge that there may be reasons to revisit judicial thinking on some of the strategies that have been used in the past.

Laws are powerful performative normative statements that can be used in order to expose illegality and, at times, illegitimacy. However, these have the possibility to become inert if not invoked or weakened when the institutions that ensure their clarity fail to do so. I refer to judicial decisions which may not be entirely appropriate to the times. Your role therefore is to use your Constitutional rights and invoke them. Your role is also to use your fundamental freedoms to express criticism of court decisions which you may disagree with. You are welcome to do so. Hopefully, this will lead to some interesting rethinking and the evolution of past doctrines.

Freedom of expression, however, is not only about our capability to express. It also should include questions of equality in the public forum.

There are greater – more social ways – that deliberative speech from those who needs them most are being stifled. Already the poor, marginalized, and oppressed do not have the resources to be able to speak as clearly, as legibly and as loudly as many of us. Many of those I have encountered in my public interest practice do not inhabit my groups or your groups in social media. Few of them can call the attention of journalists. Many of them suffer in continued silence. Whole swaths of our society remain misrepresented, misunderstood and – on a daily basis – rendered invisible by the speech that now dominate the airwaves.

Their daily concerns and their ability to be able to meet the requirements of daily existence are drowned by the scandals of the elite, the diverted attention to the trivialities of the smart phone and social media, the banality (or as someone in your earlier panel intimated the lack of sexiness) of their stories. Yet these are sometimes true stories whose accuracy is not diminished by the absence of attention. These are true stories of those who do not have the ability to speak as significantly as other. True stories that do not have drama.

In other words, the deliberations in the institutions that matter – the academe, the media, the public offices, and, perhaps, even social media – may be so involved that it detaches itself from the underlying reality that have made many of our problems possible. These are poverty, disempowerment, inequality in a society that valorizes individualism, wealth and the quick fix. No wonder there is so much disenchantment not only with our leaders but with how our society is organized. No wonder that many peoples, including our own, will look for the false messiah in the form of a demagogue or a populist or called by the name preferred by Albert Camus, Thomas Mann, and more recently, Rob Reimer: the fascist.

I do not refer to anyone. But the danger is there.

Demagogues can arise out of legal frames that are formally democratic. Usually, they take advantage of the exclusion and frustration of the majority. They offer quick fixes and represent themselves sharply from the more conscientious leaders who know that the major problems require patience, strategy and participative resources that take time. They prey on the unenlightened and, therefore, they arise when the major institutions that should deliberate on truths are weak: education, media and the courts.

The demagogue thrives on dichotomies: the “us” versus “they” syndrome. They also thrive on instinct, passion and the visual. In psychology’s parlance: system one thinking rather than system two. I think that was the point of the last panel. They demonize their enemies to stoke passion amongst their followers while, at the same time, immunizing them from their humanity. The demagogue that will thrive on the dissatisfaction of the many. They will present no viable ideology and, therefore, no consistent truth. He or she will be charismatic, anti-politician and anti-intellectual. Propaganda, in the style of Goebbels and Bernays, will be very important for him or her. He or she will call it: PR.

The antidote to a fascist or a demagogue arising cannot be symptomatic. It requires a systemic, consistent and patient effort to strengthen our people’s critical thinking. It requires that those who have the material luxury to be critical, vocal and organized in order to be able to assist those whose whole day effort is deployed only to survive.. This requires patience which many of the present generation may not have today. It will mostly lead to discomfort. It will mostly lead to dissent.

In times of my own discomfort, I recall the many engagements that I have had with people who are not as fortunate. I recall the conversations I have shared and how I know that I am privileged. That is my surest way to tell myself two things that many in our current generation may have forgotten:

First, persevere. Be patient. The most meaningful and authentic things in this life always come with a lot of patience and effort. There is no quick fix.

Second, it is not always about you. I am not the anti-selfie but the concept of selfie maybe is a fitting anti-meme for something that what we now really need: to think about others.

Perhaps if we all learn to live with this, then we will be able to guarantee fundamental freedoms. Not only ours, but also those who are now poor, those who are now marginalized, those who suffer from the tremendous inequality that exist in our times, those who are invisible.

Thank you. — Rappler.com

There is no contention that the fundamental problem of the Philippines is the over-concentration of power and wealth in Imperial Manila. And both sides of the federalism debate agree that the only way to break its domination is to establish a robust decentralized governance framework.

Empowering local or regional government, both in fiscal and administrative terms, is an undeniable requisite to spur regional development. However, designing the specifics of a multi-layer government structure is extremely challenging. And this initiative has become even more complex given that there are now 3 competing groups (Senate, House of Representatives, and the administration’s consultative committee) vying to come up with a draft constitution.

Nevertheless, the people who make up these institutions, at the least, the vast majority of them, advocate establishing a federal system of government in the country. Hopefully, identifying key concerns here can benefit both the general public as well as those tasked to write a new federal charter.

First, the assignment of responsibilities between the central and regional governments must be clear and coherent. The distribution scheme must be formulated in such a way that the designation of accountability is unequivocal. We do not want the political culture of blame-shifting and credit-grabbing to persist in the new federal regime.

Second, this division of duties and functions among the different tiers of government is very criticalbecause the correct allocation of tax powers and other revenue-raising measures depends on it– particularly, how the revenue-raising powers of the region are defined in the federal constitution itself.

Should the regions still have a share in the national taxes or should they simply get block grants? Should regional governments be vested a high degree of taxing powers and at the same time be given a huge share in the national revenue collection? 

Furthermore, a fiscal equalization mechanism is absolutely necessary to help currently underperforming regions in the transition to a federal system. But where will the money to support this initiative come from? How will it be sustained? And more importantly, which government institution should be responsible for managing this program?

Needless to say, assigning fiscal responsibility over functions shared by the central and regional governments will be a big challenge in itself. But this will definitely be influenced by how the issues previously raised are addressed in the federal constitution.

These are utterly crucial matters to consider in the proposed shift to a federal set-up. We certainly do not want a repeat of what happened in the implementation of the Local Government Code of 1991 where the devolution of functions was not followed by the devolution of funds.

Third, mechanisms must be established to foster cooperation and collaboration among the regional governments in addressing national concerns. One solid truth about federalism is that it does not diminish the integrity of the nation-state. Indeed, federation is not just about the devolution of political and fiscal powers to the sub-national level, but it is also about institutionalizing coordinated efforts toward national development.

More importantly, these mechanisms should likewise facilitate the settlement of disputes between the different levels of government. This feature in the federal charter will be especially needed as local leaders navigate through the first few years of the federal system.

Fourth, a multi-layer government structure will require a more sophisticated and streamlined anti-corruption institution. Note that every president elected since 1992 has created his or her own anti-corruption office. So instead of just having one agency to tackle this problem, we have multiple agencies. And many anti-corruption experts believe this is precisely the reason why the Philippines has failed in the battle against this heinous problem.

Instituting a coherent and robust anti-corruption mechanism in the new federal constitution is integral to the success of the federal system itself. Indeed, if the current way of fighting graft and corruption is carried over to the federal set-up, then the socio-political ills we all want to eliminate can even multiply significantly.

Fifth, the drawing of territorial boundaries must not result in drastic and immediate disruptions for Filipinos. The people’s deep familiarity with the current geographical organization of the Philippines must be seriously considered in naming the constituent units of the federal state.

But the federal charter must also have clear mechanisms for these sub-national units to reorganize themselves as they see fit. In other words, let the regions themselves decide, when the conditions are suitable, to amalgamate or to separate, as well as to initiate the process to do so.

The power over this course of action must not be vested in the central government (i.e., federal legislature) as in the 1987 Constitution with regard to the Cordilleras and the Bangsamoro.

Finally, the transition to a federal-set need not happen as soon as the federal charter is ratified by the people in the plebiscite. We have to take into account the reality that there will be a huge adjustment to be made in terms of bureaucratic organization and civil service capacity-building.

Filipinos themselves must be reoriented, having been used to an over-centralized governance structure for so long. Hence, the federal constitution can provide for a transitory process. It can specifically prescribe for the step-by-step reorganization towards the federal set-up, keeping in mind the viability of the federal system in the long term.

It must be emphasized that for the government structure to be truly federal, the new charter must depart from the non-self-executory standing of local autonomy in the 1987 Constitution. Meaning, these fundamental attributes of federalism must be evident in the text of the projected federal constitution itself and should no longer require any enabling legislation for its operationalization.

To conclude, Apolinario Mabini believed that federalism, “besides being the most perfect among the republican forms, is best suited to the topography of our country”. Clearly, this is an endorsement of federalization that must be highlighted.

But a caveat that must not be ignored comes from noted federalism expert and constitutional scholar from the Melbourne Law School, Professor Cheryl Saunders.

She warns that whatever the final federal design is, there should be among the people both a shared understanding of what has been created and a shared commitment to making the new system work. Otherwise, federalization may not produce the outcomes many Filipinos are so excited about right now. – Rappler.com

The problem with the current project to change the Constitution to bring about a federal form of government is that its main protagonists are hardly serious about their stated goal. 

The President’s aim is how to use federalism as a ruse to further centralize power under a strong president, namely him. His backers in the House are mainly interested in being able to run for office forever and ever, with no term limits.

Then there are those regional pols who can never win a national election, whether it’s for the Senate or for president, but could be installed as “Prime Minister” in a smaller jurisdiction like a “federal region”.  And, of course, there’s the big business lobby whose single-minded aim is to do away with what they see as the pesky nationalist provisions of the 1987 Constitution.

…And space cadets 

And one must not forget the political experts or academic consultants or dreamers who see the country mainly as a map to be sliced and diced and spliced into 5, 10, 15 or 50 federal regions, each one advancing impeccable reasons why their preferred number makes the most sense.

Coming up with a good constitution is one of the most difficult things to pull off, even if one has a critical mass of well-intentioned people. Unfortunately, the process brings out the crazies. And the worst outcome is when the crazies and the ambitious get together to foist their design on the country.

Panty’s vision

One need not go far to point to the hazards of constitution-making by an alliance of hard-nosed self-interested politicians and space cadets who think society is a blank slate that one can write anything onto.

One proposal in the House committee on constitutional amendments would divide the Philippines into 5 states, with each state headed by a prime minister and with its own constitution, name, capital, flag, anthem and seal.

If Speaker Panty Alvarez had his way, the Philippines would be divided into 14 states, with the capital “somewhere” in Negros, presumably to ensure that visiting foreign dignitaries are treated to the faded glories of Philippine feudalism instead of the gritty realities of Metro Manila. 

One can expect wilder plans to emerge in the Constituent Assembly or “Con-Ass” into which the Senate and the House would transmogrify themselves. If after so many years, these professional politicians could not agree on the design of an autonomous state for the one region of the country that really needed it urgently, the Bangsa Moro region, what more a federal structure for a country of 100 million-plus people, with all the intricate balances and sophisticated structures this system will require?

Constitution-making as revolutionary process

This does not mean we should give up on Charter Change. For there are parts of the 1987 Constitution that need amending, or there are urgent items we must add.

For instance, we need to add or strengthen provisions that would redistribute wealth for the common good, institutionalize a guaranteed basic income and other forms of 21^st century social security, create a developmental state, promote genuine gender and cultural diversity, mobilize society against climate change, and bring about the decentralization and deconcentration of political and economic power – whether that would take the form of a federal structure or something else.

This kind of constitutional change, however, must be one that comes from below, where ordinary citizens, not professional politicians, are the ones who initiate and carry the process forward.

In fact, the participation of politicians and elites must be kept to a minimum, perhaps through some kind of negative property qualification, like one’s weight in the convention being negatively correlated with one’s wealth, meaning the less you own or the lesser your income, the greater your vote. One can envision local or regional assemblies taking place over a year, culminating in a national constitutional congress. 

This means that the process of amending the Constitution or creating a new one will have to be a revolutionary process, one that takes it away from the hands of the elites and professional politicians, and places it in the hands of the people.

This may sound idealistic, but the important thing is to work towards something like it, though the resulting process and outcome might fall short of the ideal. In fact, any process is better than the Con-Ass that Duterte and his allies are apparently determined to foist on the rest of us, which is certain to produce an ass of a Constitution. – Rappler.com 

Walden Bello made the only resignation on principle in the history of Congress of the Philippines, after serving in the House of Representatives from 2009 to 2015, owing to principled differences with then president Benigno Aquino III on the Disbursement Acceleration Program (DAP), the Mamasapano raid, and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement with the United States. He is currently the National Chairperson of the coalition Laban ng Masa.

You may not realize it yet, but there is a growing list of markets and economic activities in which President Duterte and his allies want to intervene.

From rice, irrigation, airlines, ride-hailing, media, telecom, fireworks, five-six, public bidding, tourism, mining, contractualization, overseas employment, illegal drugs, higher education, housing, pensions, and incomes– Duterte wants to exercise varying degrees of control over them all.

Although markets are generally good in organizing economic activity, they also occasionally “fail” – as in the case of monopolies, congestion, and disinformation.

In such cases, some form of government intervention might be justified. But economists are usually skeptical of this because some sort of failure by government itself is almost always bound to happen.

In this 3-part series we explore Duterte’s market interventions so far, which can be categorized into:

1. Threats, harassments, or extortions of specific firms or sectors
2. Blanket bans on certain goods and services
3. Populist promises of “free” or cheap goods and services

You will see that, no matter how well-intentioned, these policies by Duterte are undeniably heavy-handed and symptomatic of his authoritarian tendencies. In addition, many of them are likely to worsen market outcomes than improve them.

I. Threats, harassments, extortions

Too often Duterte’s brand of regulation involves bullying the private sector: threatening, harassing, or extorting specific firms or sectors.

1) Rice

In response to “greedy” traders and the recent shortage of NFA (National Food Authority) rice, agriculture Secretary Manny Piñol boldly said he wanted to “take rice business out of private hands and give it to the government.” He also threatened to file economic sabotage cases against private traders.

He’s forgetting that rice is already heavily controlled by government. By law the NFA has a monopoly on rice importation. In recent decades it has allowed some degree of importation by the private sector, but not exceeding a fixed limit or quota per year. 

Economists have long blamed the government quota on rice imports (and NFA’s monopoly status) as the primary reason for our high rice prices and susceptibility to supply shocks.

Proposals to remove this quota (and abolish the NFA altogether) have long been on the table, yet Duterte has failed to act. He even angrily fired an agriculture undersecretary on the (misplaced) assumption that she wanted to allow more rice imports.

This aversion to importation by the private sector is unfortunate: it could reduce rice prices and help temper the impact of the new tax reform law (TRAIN) on inflation.

Thus, contrary to Piñol’s view, it is the government – not the private sector – that is at fault here.

2) Airlines

House Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez recently railed against Cebu Pacific over various issues, such as supposedly long queues, flight delays, and a “refusal” to use airport tubes.

Alvarez ordered Cebu Pacific to fix these issues within 45 days and migrate its domestic flights out of NAIA 3, on pain of a canceled congressional franchise.

Over the years Cebu Pacific, along with other airlines, has effectively promoted tourism and democratized air travel with its affordable rates. NAIA 3, despite its shortcomings, is also arguably the best of our airports.

Denying people’s access to both these services will just spell innumerable and needless inconveniences for air travelers. How could such a thought even cross the Speaker’s mind?

This is not the first time this government has attacked specific airlines. Last year Duterte himself threatened Philippine Airlines (PAL) with closure of NAIA Terminal 2 (which PAL uses exclusively) if it failed to pay its multibillion-peso government debts. In the process, Duterte even accused PAL owner Lucio Tan of funding “destabilization” efforts.

Such bullying seems to have worked: last November PAL gave in and paid P6 billion.

3) Ride-hailing

Government is also hot on the heels of ride-hailing services Uber and Grab.

The LTFRB recently capped the number of ride-hailing vehicles at 66,750, up from 45,700 last month.

Last year, the LTFRB also stopped the processing of new franchise applications, demanded P190 million to lift Uber’s suspension, and made a show of “losing” Uber and Grab’s accreditation papers in their office. Today, lawmakers are pushing a law that would eventually require Uber and Grab to get congressional franchises before operating.

Uber’s algorithms, which allow supply and demand to meet 24/7, are designed to make hailing fast and easy.

But the government’s incessant meddling in their operations – some say to protect vested interests in the taxi industry – has made hailing slow and painful. Waiting times have doubled or tripled in recent months, and vehicles now come from farther afield than before.

Although caps could arguably abate road congestion, chipping away at the convenience of Uber and Grab’s services – at a time when public commuting is arduous (even dangerous) – is nearly a malevolent act.

4) Media

True malevolence has been manifest in Duterte’s constant threats to media outfits like the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Rappler, and ABS-CBN.

Back in April, he threatened to block the renewal of ABS-CBN’s congressional franchise because of allegedly unaired political ads.

After hurling several accusations – including “economic sabotage” and “swindling” – Duterte also pressured (successfully) the owners of the Inquirer to sell their majority shares to Ramon Ang, Duterte’s friend and major campaign donor.

Most blatant, however, is Duterte’s continuing attack on Rappler. It started in his 2017 SONA and led to the Securities and Exchange Commission’s revocation of Rappler’s registration in January.

Malacañang has also recently resorted to media censorship: for example, Rappler’s Palace correspondent, Pia Ranada, was suddenly prohibited from covering the President inside Malacañang.

Any democracy is founded on a free marketplace of ideas, and this includes a free and independent press. Duterte’s incessant attacks on media outfits is no ordinary attack on business: it is a direct assault on one of the pillars of our democracy.

5) Telecom

To break the telecom duopoly between Globe and PLDT-Smart, Duterte himself is aggressively pushing for the entry of a third player, preferably one from China.

He wants operations to start as early as the first quarter of 2018, and even warned the courts not to “interfere” or “prolong” the process.

Although we do need more competition in this sector – to whip the existing duopoly into providing cheaper and faster services – so many questions remain unanswered:

Does the third player really have to be Chinese? How does this fit in Duterte’s overall pivot to China? What threats could a Chinese player pose to our national security? What special interests are at play? Why is Duterte personally rushing this?

Duterte’s threats have also not spared this sector. At no cost to the government, PLDT recently surrendered some of its radio frequencies, which Duterte plans to hand to the incoming third player. But this came after Duterte threatened to send over auditors and look into PLDT’s books.

When a dictator intervenes in markets

Sometimes government does need to intervene in markets (as in encouraging competition in the telecom sector).

But a lot of Duterte’s market interventions so far seem to stem not from a well-informed or genuine desire to correct so-called “market failures,” but from an urge to brandish the awesome powers of the state whichever way possible – even if it means constantly threatening, harassing, or extorting the private sector.

This brand of regulation is deviant and disturbing, but not remotely surprising: it is but symptomatic of Duterte’s nature as a bully and dictator, to which he has already confessed.

But bulldozing the private sector this way could come at the cost of worse market outcomes for our people: rice could be more expensive, air travel more inconvenient, ride-hailing more inaccessible, media less independent, and telecom less secure.

Which firms or sectors will the Duterte government threaten, harass, or extort next? Are they aware of the economic costs of their bully tactics? As the country slides ever deeper into authoritarian rule, where do we draw the line? – Rappler.com

(To be continued. Part 2: Duterte’s penchant for blanket bans.)

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. 

Ang problema sa kasalukuyang proyektong baguhin ang Konstitusyon para magkaroon ng sistemang federalismo ay di naman seryoso ang mga pasimuno nito na makamit ang kanilang layunin.

Ang layunin naman talaga ng Pangulo ay gamitin ang federalismo para mapasakanya ang lahat ng kapangyarihan at maging malakas na pangulo. Samantala, sinusuportahan siya ng mga kongresistang ang tanging layunin ay makapanatili sa poder nang hindi natatapos ang termino.

Samantala, ang mga lokal na pulitiko na walang kakayahang mahalal o malagay sa pambansang puwesto ay maaaring maging "punong ministro" sa maliliit na teritoryo tulad ng federal regions. At siyempre, para naman sa mga malalaking negosyante, pabor sa kanilang mawala ang mga probisyong makabayan sa Konstitusyong 1987.

Ang bisyon ni Panty Alvarez

May kanya-kanya at samu’t saring dahilan din o paliwanag ang mga eksperto umano sa pulitika o mga consultant na akademiko, at ang mga nangangarap ng federalismo kung bakit gusto nilang mahati ang bansa sa 5, 10, 15, or 50 rehiyong federal. Iba-iba ang dahilan nila kung bakit pabor sila sa “magic number” na itinutulak nila.

Isa sa pinakamahirap na gawain ang bumuo ng isang mabuti o mahusay na Konstitusyon kahit pa may sapat na bilang ng taong mabuti ang hangarin. Sa kasamaang palad, maraming mga nasisiraan ng bait ang lumalabas habang nasa proseso ng paggawa ng Konstitusyon.

Hindi na kailangang lumayo pa para makita ang masasamang maidudulot ng pagbabago ng Konstitusyon kung ang mga bumubuo nito ay mga space cadet at mga pulitikong sariling interes lang ang itinataguyod. Ang tingin nila sa lipunan ay isang blangkong papel na puwede nilang sulatan ng kahit ano'ng gusto nila.

Halimbawa, may isang panukala mula sa committee on constitutional amendments sa Kamara na hatiin ang bansa sa 5 estado, at ang bawat isang estado ay pamumunuan ng punong ministro at may sari-sariling konstitusyon, pangalan ng estado, punong lungsod, bandila, pambansang awit, at tatak.

Kung si Speaker Panty Alvarez ang masusunod, hahatiin ang Pilipinas sa 14 na estado, at ang punong lungsod ay sa Negros, marahil para tiyakin na makakatikim ang mga dignitary mula sa ibang bansa ng naglahong glorya ng pyudalismo sa halip na maharap sa magulong realidad ng Metro Manila.

Makakaasa pa tayo sa mas nakababaliw na mga panukala mula sa Constituent Assembly o “Con-Ass” na bubuuin ng pinagsamang Kamara at Senado. Kung hindi nga magkaisa sa pagbubuo ng isang autonomous state para sa Bangsamoro sa loob ng maraming taon, ano pa kaya ang mararating sa pagbubuo ng isang bansa sa ilalim ng estrukturang federalismo para sa 100 milyong mamamayang mas kumplikado at nangangailangan ng sopistikasyon?

Tulak mula sa ibaba

Hindi natin sinasabing hindi na dapat baguhin o amyendahan ang ating Konstitusyon, dahil may mga probisyon naman talaga ang Konstitusyong 1987 na kailangan ng amyenda, at may mahahalagang probisyon na dapat idagdag.

Halimbawa, kailangan ng dagdag o mas malakas na probisyon para sa:

• Mas pantay na pagbabahagi ng yaman ng bansa sa ikabubuti ng marami
• Institusyonalisadong garantiya sa batayang sahod at iba pang anyo ng panlipunang seguridad na angkop sa ika-21 siglo
• Paglikha ng isang pasulong o progresibong estado
• Pagtataguyod ng pagkakapantay-pantay ng kababaihan at kalalakihan at mga magkakaibang kultura
• Mobilisasyon ng bansa para sa paglunas sa climate change
• Pagtatatag ng decentralization o deconcentration ng kapangyarihang pampulitika at pang-ekonomya

Kung federalismo ba ang makakapagdala ng mga ito o hindi ay ibang usapin pa.

Ang ganitong mga uri ng pagbabago ay kinakailangang manggaling mula sa ibaba at itulak ng mas nakararaming ordinaryong mamamayan, hindi ng mga propesyonal na politiko.

Katunayan, dapat maliit lang ang partisipasyon ng mga politiko at elite sa prosesong ito; ang mas mayaman o mas may kapangyarihan sa politika, mas maliit ang papel, samantalang ang mas maliit ang suweldo at wala sa poder, mas malaki ang papel o karapatang bumoto sa proseso ng pag-aamyenda ng saligang batas. Kung ganito ang gagawin, ang mabubuo ay mga kapulungang pangrehiyon, na siya namang bubuo sa pambansang kongreso.

Ang ibig sabihin nito, ang pagbabago sa konstitusyon ay isang rebolusyonaryong proseso, at wala sa kamay ng elite at mga propesyonal na politiko kundi nasa kamay ng mamamayan.

Maaaring tingnan ito bilang idealista, ngunit ang mas mahalaga ay ganito ang tahakin ng proseso kahit pa hindi perpekto ang maging resulta. Sa totoo, kahit anong proseso ay katanggap-tanggap kaysa sa Con-Ass na gustong ipilit ni Duterte at ng kanyang mga kaalyado na walang mabuting maidudulot. – Rappler.com

Si Walden Bello ay kasalukuyang international adjunct professor sa sosyolohiya sa State University of New York at Binghamton. Siya ay author o co-author ng 20 libro. Naging kinatawan siya sa Mababang Kapulungan noong 2009-2015. Siya ang kaisa-isang nagbitiw dahil sa prinsipyo sa buong kasaysayan ng Kongreso ng Pilipinas dahil sa pagkakaiba ng posisyon sa dating pangulong Benigno Aquino III sa isyu ng Disbursement Acceleration Program, Mamasapano, at ang Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement ng Pilpinas at Estados Unidos.

Leloy Claudio travels back in time with Ateneo professor Filomeno Aguilar to prehistoric Philippine and clears up a deep-seated myth taught in school. Were there really 3 distinct waves of migration? Who were our forefathers? – 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
• 5 ways to shield yourself from fake news
• Why political participation matters
• Constitution 101 with Florin Hilbay

This opinion piece is part of the Silver Lining Series written by members of the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD), an organization of liberal and democratic parties in Asia, to celebrate its 25th Anniversary this 2018.

In the evening of February 23, 2017, I was in my office in the Philippine Senate, waiting for the hours to pass until the agreed time of my surrender.  That night marked the very height of the hounding I had been suffering at the hands of the President and his henchmen.  Yes, hounding, for I felt like prey being toyed with and tortured by a predator right before it went for the kill.

It started with verbal attacks from the President himself, who vowed to destroy me publicly because I represented the human rights movement that, in his perception, made him its “whipping boy.”  Then his men all threw in their own kicks and punches.  I was slut-shamed.  Videos and photos were spliced.  Perjured testimonies were bought and collected.  A colleague of mine in the Senate even jokingly described me as the “most wiretapped person in the country,” and the President himself admitted that he was listening into my correspondences with the help of a “friendly nation.”

It became a game of who can earn the most brownie points by brutalizing that irrepressible Leila M. de Lima.

For a while, I was referred to as an unnamed female government official.  But anyone who knew me or Duterte, or, at least, knew about the spate of extrajudicial killings (EJKs) that were happening as early as the first two months of his presidency and his so-called “War on Drugs,” knew that he was referring to me.  After all, I had delivered a privilege speech before the Philippine Senate calling for a stop to the killings.  

While I expressed support for the campaign against illegal drugs, I objected to the use of extrajudicial killings as a means to solve it, for it is the embodiment of an evil far greater than what we were fighting.  “Impunity, once unleashed, has no boundaries. It does not care who dies. It does not care who suffers.… [It] has no sense of right or wrong. It is as amoral as it is immoral.

“We need not destroy lives in order to destroy drugs,” I said.  And with that, I signed my own arrest warrant.

It was bound to happen.  The enemies I made – as chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, as secretary of justice and, now, as senator of the Philippine Republic – were too powerful and had demonstrated their brutality even before I became a public servant. 

As far as I was concerned, short of killing me, my enemies have already done their worst. 

And I thank them for making that mistake.  It placed me somewhere I could not have reached without their help: in the company of giants and immortals.

Nelson Mandela. Senator Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr of the Philippines.  In Asia, Ilham Toti, who was named the winner of the Martin Ennals Foundation’s award.  And many, many others.

Just like that, I was no longer just one woman. I’m a prisoner of conscience.  

My persecutors thought that putting someone like me in jail will isolate me until I wither into oblivion.  I have to say, in my 10 years in public service, this has been the most liberating and most engaging experience of my life.  

In the past, I was knowledgeable and well-versed in the problems I was trying to draw attention to on an intellectual and, perhaps, even on a sympathetic level.  But there was a line dividing and isolating me from the people I am defending.  

Now, that line has been dissolved.  And that came with so many realizations.  

First, political persecution is never about the individual.  It is about an idea.

You cannot kill or jail an idea. By persecuting the messenger, you strengthen it.

Second, this is a lesson that we, too, as the defenders of human rights, democracy and the rule of law should learn and always bear in mind.  

Authoritarianism and populism are ideas that can never be killed.  They are always there in the shadows of the human mind and society, waiting for someone to expertly manipulate reality, or the people’s perception of reality, to make them seem like the one and true answer to all of the people’s woes.

The moment we think we’ve “won,” we slide into complacency and plant the seeds for the rise of the next populist or authoritarian ruler.  

Instead, we must constantly address the ideas they represent head on, bearing in mind what makes movements like authoritarianism and populism so attractive to people.  

Note, it isn’t because people are irrational.  It is because people are trying to act rationally while having an imperfect knowledge of the past, the present, and the future.  News flash: fake news and propaganda aren’t anything new.  Only the platforms and the technology are new, making them more effective and powerful in manipulating people into making the wrong decisions.

Third, populists and authoritarians create the illusion of simplicity, compared with the “lofty” ideals of democracy and liberalism, i.e., human rights, rule of law, democracy and freedom.  If we are ineffective in connecting these with people’s “real” daily needs, we will always be accused of being out-of-touch elites, paving the way for populists and authoritarians to step in.

It is Maslow’s hierarchy of needs applied to public governance.  A hungry man just wants to eat.  A woman who is afraid just wants to feel protected.  A parent whose child fell victim to the drug menace just wants to see the drug problem eliminated. 

That’s when a populist leader comes in and promises that those can be achieved, but only if sacrifices are made.  That’s when he or she can boldly say that “human rights is the enemy.”  By the time the people realize their mistakes, they are little more than slave labor and secondary citizens in their own countries, being forced to live in subhuman conditions.  

To avert this, we must learn to speak to our people, not to talk over them, expecting them to see what we see.  Because, as a victim, I realized that when you are trapped within the 4 corners of your daily life, it is hard to see, much less care, about the big picture.

Finally, political persecution is a threat to democracy.  Persecutors want their victims to be silenced, and for others to take heed and obey.  

But it is also a warning in another sense: it is better to be proactive, than be passive.  If I had kept quiet – as I was asked to do about my objections about the EJKs – it would have been easier to assassinate my character in the eyes of the public, should I finally be moved to say something later. At least I had my track record as proof and testament of my innocence.

If we stay silent once, we have to stay silent forever.  We might as well pack our bags, admit defeat and surrender our humanity.

But, if it is true that “the hottest place in hell is reserved to those, who, in times of moral crisis, refuse to take a stand,” I would rather be jailed in defense of what is right, than go to hell in the company of those responsible for our collective descent into impunity, fear, and inhumanity. – Rappler.com

 Leila M. de Lima is a Philippine Senator and a member of the Liberal Party, a founding member-party of the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats.

February 23, 2018

Director General Ronald dela Rosa
Incoming Chief, Bureau of Corrections

Dear Director Gen Ronald Dela Rosa,

The purpose of this open letter is to firstly congratulate you on your expected appointment as the new head of the Bureau of Corrections (BuCor). We feel that your current efforts and future vision for the BuCor will help pave the way for a long-lasting legacy. We personally believe that you have the capability, experience and professionalism to overcome the deep-rooted problems found in the BuCor, and especially in the New Bilibid Prison (NBP).

Without sounding too presumptuous, we are also writing to you to offer our support to your efforts, provide our take on how to institutionalize the early gains you have made, and to also broaden the areas of reform in the Philippines correctional system. Our advice comes from over 10 years of observational and participatory research, where we have engaged both senior BuCor and Bureau of Jail Management and Penology (BJMP) personnel, prison/jail guards, inmate leaders and inmates.

We have also run many training courses and workshops for both Bureaus and have advised in areas such as, corruption, prison gang management, intelligence, analysis, risk assessment and rehabilitation. We remain committed to supporting the BuCor (and BJMP) because we believe strongly in its overall mission statement and goals. In saying this, we provide the following recommendations and commentary for your consideration. 

First, it is important to stress that the current presence of the highly-respected Philippine National Police (PNP) Special Action Force (SAF) in the Maximum-Security Compound (Maximum) has indeed significantly reduced the endemic prison drug trade and inmate drug use by at least 90%. In your media pronouncements, you indicated that you would continue to pursue this approach. Indeed, you recently supervised the turnover of a new batch of 300 SAF officers, some of whom had recently fought in the Marawi Conflict, to relieve the current officers stationed at NBP.

You also made strong pronouncements against the active drug-dealing inmates to stop their illicit trade and to reform them from their old ways. This strong message should deter many from dealing drugs in and outside of prisons. The NBP had been a source of national embarrassment, where drug-dealing inmates have continued their trade, even though they were serving sentences inside prison. The presence of the SAF, with its strict regime of surveillance and control, its repressive policy of limiting inmate movement, and its emphasis on removing inmate privileges, has indeed reduced opportunities for inmates to deal and use drugs in Maximum.

While the SAF approach has made a significant impact, we recognize that it may not be a sustainable solution. For example, while the drug trade and inmate use in the Maximum has been tremendously curtailed, in the Medium Security Compound (Medium) it has been the reverse. Some of the drug-dealing inmates have been transferred to the Medium where the trade has filled the vacuum created by the deactivation and suppression of the inmates in Maximum.

In criminological literature, this is called “geographical displacement.” This is not surprising, (and it is unfair to blame the SAF for this, as they are not guarding the Medium), considering that drug markets usually find ways to overcome the restrictive policies of the state. This is true not only in the Philippines but in other countries as well.

Despite the repressive policies of the SAF in Maximum, most accounts suggest that drug trade and use continue to proliferate, albeit on a much lower scale.  Also, despite the reduction of drug use, other forms of contraband, like alcohol and cigarettes, have gained prominence as the alternative source of income. This is called “product displacement”, where offenders discover new lucrative alternative markets.

Again, this should not be blamed on the SAF. Even in the most restrictive prison regimes in the world, some recalcitrant inmates find creative ways to bring in contraband to overcome the pains of imprisonment. Thus, your plan of expanding the coverage of the SAF in the Medium will reduce the drug trade and inmate use in that facility. However, like in the Maximum, it will not be a sustainable solution to an endemic problem.

To make it sustainable, the SAF approach needs to be complemented by other strategies. These complementary strategies should look at the structural, organizational, and cultural conditions of the BuCor, which create the conducive criminal environment to the drug trade. Only by looking at the root causes of the problem can we incorporate a sustained intervention to overcome it.

For example, BuCor facilities are overcrowded, dilapidated, and outdated. More so, the Maximum and Medium Security Compounds, with current populations of 17,000 and 6,500 inmates, respectively, are two of the biggest mega-prisons in the world.

Current correctional literature suggests that mega-prisons of these sizes are naturally criminogenic. That is, they create environments that are conducive to the transfer and sharing of criminal thinking. Even the most sophisticated prison superintendents will not be able to effectively govern such prisons.

Thus, being a BuCor chief, and with your closeness to the President, you will be in the best position to advocate for small regional prisons. These smaller prisons should contain no more than 2,000 inmates and should be scattered throughout the different regions of the Philippines. The initial overall cost of such a move would be significant, but, in the longer term, it would be far more cost effective and reduce the levels of overcrowding and recidivism.

Another significant but related issue is corruption. The BuCor personnel have been much-maligned public servants of the country. They are casually charged with corruption and misconduct despite the difficulties of the job. Based on the BuCor Modernization Law, the ideal inmate to custodial officer ratio is 1:7; however, it currently stands at 1:80.

More so, compared to their counterparts in the BJMP, who receive a monthly pay of P29,000 for starting jail officers, the BuCor starting correctional officers receive a measly monthly pay of P13,000. While this should not be utilized as an excuse for corruption, many officers had been forced to engage in informal ventures to augment their income inside the prison facilities.

These informal moneymaking schemes become the initial enticement for corruption. Thus, you will also be in the best position to advocate with Congress, Department of Budget and Management (DBM) and the Office of the President to fast-track the implementation of the BuCor modernization Law, which had been passed in 2013. The modernization law provides the legal framework to address the iniquitous pay, dilapidated facilities, and the insufficient number of BuCor personnel.

Making matters worse, the operational budget of the BuCor is extremely inadequate. The budget for food per inmate per day is P60 and for medicine is P10, which by all accounts, is not enough. There is very limited budget for reformation of the inmates, for the maintenance of the facilities, buildings and equipment, and for the daily operations of the Bureau. As such, many of the reform programs designed to rehabilitate inmates are poorly designed, implemented, and financed.

While the rehabilitation officers do their best to create programs, most of the rehabilitation initiatives do not prepare inmates for their eventual release as dutiful and law-abiding citizens. Again, you will be in the best position to plead with the Filipino public and Congress to augment the inadequate resources currently provided to the BuCor.  

These structural reforms are important, because without these, the organizational setup of the BuCor, which is based on old penology, will be maintained. For example, due to the lack of space and facilities, prison officers informally allow inmates to construct their own tarima (beds), kubol (cubicles), or kubo (cottage). These are informal facilities meant to maximize the space inside the dormitories. These are important coping mechanisms to overcome the lack of ventilation, humidity, and crowding.

Also, due to lack of personnel, inmates are assigned custodial, administrative, and rehabilitation functions. Thus, you will hear such inmate titles as Bosyo, Commander, Mayores, Kulturero, Bastonero, Ranchero, Mahinarya and other intricate roles and titles inside the cells. While trivial to outsiders, these titles have symbolic meaning to the inmates.

These inmate leaders, collectively called as nanunungkulan, mediate the conflicts among inmates, generate cell funds to help sick and disabled inmates, conduct headcounts, and sometimes even hold the keys, as well as a host of other informal jobs. This form of shared governance develops as a coping mechanism for inmates to self-regulate themselves and to provide order in the heavily overcrowded cells.

Finally, the lack of resources has induced the formation of the "Very Important Preso" (VIP) system. The VIP system is different from the preferential treatment of the Very Important Persons.

The prison VIPs are inmates who have visitors and resources who are exempted from inmate tasks in exchange of their financial contributions to the cell. The VIPs are expected to provide food to the inmates without visitors in cell groups called kasalo. The VIP system entails that inmates can bring cash inside the facility so that they can survive the pains of imprisonment. (To be concluded) – Rappler.com

Raymund E. Narag, PhD, teaches at the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice of Southern Illinois University Carbondale while Clarke Jones, PhD, is from the Research School of Psychology, Australia National University. 

When too many things are going on at the same time in your life, you can become confused, and lose focus and perspective.

That’s the sort of situation we’re in. But, since we’re caught in it as a nation, not as individuals, there’s no telling what dangers await; the goings-on are so closely interconnected their dire consequences are likely to be aggravated by cross-feeding.

But how far do we see into the grim future? What are we prepared to do?

The future is actually visible across a fair distance; we’re just afraid to look. So, look!

Thousands are killed in a brutal campaign against drugs, and we are grateful for being drug-free ourselves (or for taking cocaine, the allowable “natural stuff,” instead of the low-end shabu – methamphetamine). We’re also grateful for so efficient a method of cleansing – extra-judicial – we tend to disregard the legal and moral responsibilities for it.

A senator is thrown in jail, the Chief Justice is lined up for impeachment, in both cases on ridiculous pretexts, and we put it all down to politics.

The Vice President, the eminently worthy constitutional alternative, is in danger of being forced out of the line of succession by familiar dark forces, and we simply watch. 

This news organization, Rappler, is itself picked on; it is summarily judged in violation of securities regulations, and the President bans it before a higher court could rule on its appeal with finality. Certain other media, meanwhile, are only relieved to be spared, and news consumers take what remains of the truth after the freedom suppressors of the state and the self-censors of the cowed or co-opted media have worked it over.

A constitutional change begins to be railroaded to allow federalization, and, as in the case of the anti-drug campaign, we think it’s a welcome shortcut. We think nothing of the consequent institutionalization of the long-operating culture of patronage and perpetuation of political dynasties. 

Martial law – or some form of it – is no longer just in the air; it has descended, in the south, and from there it’s being induced to spread, plague-fashion. Yet, we continue to pussyfoot around.

These are all terror tactics intended to ease our descent into authoritarianism. And, if we think the ultimate danger is native, Marcos-style authoritarianism, we really have not been looking. What we stand to lose this time is not just our freedom, but our sovereignty, our identity, our very soul as a nation.

It’s a prospect that, once realized, goes down in history as the greatest national betrayal, a crime perpetrated by one man who, in his deviant, self-centered mentality, has taken his election as president to constitute a blanket power of attorney, if not an outright transfer of ownership: since he owns us, he can sell us.

The prospect is widely taken as a joke for its ostensible incredibility: How does an entire archipelago get sold? Surely we have advanced for well over a century since the closing days of colonial conquests when we were sold by Spain to the United States for $20 million.

Considered from an informed perspective, the danger becomes all too real. If it remains denied, it must be out of a mixed sense of helplessness and fear: How do you stand up to a President who has on his hands blood from 4 personal kills and thousands more by his order or incitement or inspiration?

How, indeed, do you stand up to a broker-president like Rodrigo Duterte acting in collusion yet with a buyer-subjugator like China? That compound challenge is the ultimate challenge.

Not unlike the bombardment preceding an offensive, the terrorism and repression under Duterte are meant to soften the ground for the great sellout, which began with the effective cession of Philippine waters to China. Military bases, well armed and complete with airstrips, have since cropped out of those waters.

If there’s a fair exchange here, we have not seen any of the gains coming to us. In fact, none are coming. But, Duterte’s economic managers, plead, “We want to make new friends.”

And so, we are taking China’s offer of credit to finance Duterte’s “Build, build, build” program – credit that carries interest rates 12 times the quarter-percent offered by old friend Japan.   

The new friend promises in fact to become so nice we are willing to go into its "debt bondage” (for all its horrific connotations, a felicitous phrase owed to the analyst for Forbes Anders Corr) – willing, in other words, to be foreclosed on as a nation. – Rappler.com

The best course of action for Manila in the West Philippine Sea (WPS) still lies in adroit diplomacy combined with continuing efforts to build a minimum credible defense. To this end, the second meeting of the Philippines-China Bilateral Consultation Mechanism and on-going ASEAN-China negotiations for a binding Code of Conduct in the South China Sea (SCS) should be welcomed as steps on the right direction. Upgrades and modernization of our facilities in the Kalayaan Islands are underway to improve the living conditions of our people and our troops in our smallest but most critical municipality. That said, much remains to be done in the Philippines' territorial and maritime rights defense. 

'No taunt or flaunt' stays

The Duterte administration decided not to assert the tribunal ruling (for now) for understandable grounds. Resolving the longstanding, complicated, and multiparty territorial and maritime disputes by way of asserting the ruling rests on the assumption that, in the absence of an enforcement mechanism, the international community will stand by the Philippines and pressure China to comply. The President saw the foundation of this assumption as weak and thought that it would be imprudent to put the nation’s undivided fate on it. He had seen the limits of what the country can obtain from the international community when China commenced the construction of artificial islands while the arbitration case was on-going. That was very telling and instructive to him.

Aside from US’ freedom of navigation operations and few official statements from some states which made oblique references to China’s activities, the international community largely stood by while China accomplished what it set out to do. The Philippines felt like an orphan in ASEAN and a damsel in distress begging for the activation of a loosely-defined Article V of a Mutual Defense Treaty whose deterrent capacity has since eroded in his eyes. China was able to weather whatever criticisms that came out after its action. In fact, China, rightly or wrongly, saw the arbitration as a causus belli as lawfare and retaliated accordingly by building the artificial islands. Hence, one can even argue that Philippines’ failure to foresee China’s reaction played into Beijing’s hand and gave it domestic legitimacy for its artificial island-building adventure. 

The Philippines already got burned for taking the frontline while others sat back and watched the show. For that reason, Duterte does not want to go down the same name-and-shame strategy again. Perhaps, if other claimants take the cudgels, he may reconsider his position. Like other major powers, China rarely responds to pressure lest it be seen as feeble by its domestic public and their peers. The more it is pressed, the more it will take a hardline stance. This will narrow the room for diplomacy and unnecessarily increase the political, economic, and security costs for Manila with no clear benefit in sight. Other countries will just free ride with the Philippines again but will keep a safe distance cautious of the consequences of such support to their burgeoning economic ties with China. They may even use their support or threat to support as a bargaining chip in their own dealings with Beijing. China is now the world’s largest trading nation and the largest trade partner to 124 countries. Duterte is unconvinced that we can reasonably expect these countries to come out strongly on our side in relation to the dispute. Therefore, he does not see the value of Manila exposing itself again to such costs when the chance of success is dismal and when other measures are still under play and not yet fully exhausted. 

Raising the ruling now, after relative stability since 2016 and on-going bilateral and regional efforts to manage the situation, is ill-advised and counterproductive. Access to traditional fishing grounds had been restored. There are efforts to cooperate in marine scientific research and offshore energy development. A hotline communication between the Philippines and Chinese coast guards had been put up to manage untoward incidents. The situation in Scarborough Shoal remain unchanged. A Filipino name can be matched for every Chinese name that China will assign to underwater features in the Benham Rise, which is by the way separate and distinct to the West Philippine Sea. Besides, it is unlikely for such Chinese names to be even adopted by international nomenclature. Partnership for marine scientific research is inclusive and open to all interested and capable countries, including China. Thus, Duterte does not see the heightened threat perception coming from critics as being equally shared by his neighbors and fellow claimants.

Are we just too paranoid and vocal or are they just too meek and hopeless? Or have they just kowtowed and been bought by China? While the language of defeatism and acquiescence must really be stamped out, efforts by our leaders to discuss with China should not be seen as succumbing or being too soft. The leaders of Vietnam, Malaysia, and Indonesia find it necessary, even imperative, to hold discussions with China in relation to their disputes. The US and China have multiple levels of dialogue and engagement in far-ranging fields, despite continued frictions. 

Be worthy as friend or foe

The Philippines was one of the pioneers in occupying features in the West Philippine Sea and asserting its jurisdiction on the same dating back to the 1970s. China, in fact, is just a late comer. The failure of successive governments to upgrade and modernize our security and civilian facilities, over reliance on amity and goodwill of neighbors, and overconfidence in the international system worked to our disadvantage. While protesting the illegal occupation and militarization carried out by other claimants, we should also do our part where it is most needed – effecting our claims on the ground. Past defense officials called attention to the urgency of improving our security posture in the area, but lack of political will and bureaucratic wrangling made for lost opportunities.

The improved climate of bilateral relations now and leverage from a favorable landmark ruling allows the Philippine government to have frank and candid discussions on sensitive issues with China. The Bilateral Consultation Mechanism set up in 2016 provides one such appropriate channel. The relative calm post-ruling also provides a good atmosphere to make long-delayed upgrades and modernization of civilian and defensive structures in the Kalayaan Islands. We still occupy among the largest natural features in the contested sea and most of it is being lost not to other claimants but to soil erosion.

It will be a disservice to our settlers and frontline defenders there if we will pin all our hopes in a strategy that Duterte thought had not brought us anywhere. Internationalizing the pitiful state of our brave defenders in Ayungin languishing in a rusting ship beached on a sandbar while much resources are devoted to the legal track is a shameful and humiliating exercise for him. Duterte appears to be a staunch believer in realpolitik. Vietnam, Malaysia and Indonesia never allowed foreign bases and downplayed the presence of foreign troops in their soil, yet were able to put up a modest defensive posture, while keeping engagement with China. The President thought that Philippines should not put itself in a pitiful situation and ask the international community to salvage it out. This is especially so if such help comes with unwarranted attached conditions and involve entanglement with other countries’ agendas. For Duterte, it does not make us look worthy as friend or foe. – Rappler.com

Lucio Blanco Pitlo III is a Lecturer at the School of Social Sciences of Ateneo de Manila University and a Contributing Editor (Reviews) for Asian Politics & Policy Journal. He is currently based in Washington DC where he is taking Graduate Studies on Defense, Diplomacy & Development at the American University, and a scholar intern at the Woodrow Wilson Center for International Scholars. The views expressed here are his own. 

President Duterte thinks that condoms are not pleasurable and discourages their use. A group of clergymen claims that condoms do not effectively prevent HIV. 

A 72-year-old grandpa and men of the cloth are giving out condom advice. An old man who, by his own admission, can’t get it up without popping a pill and a group of men forbidden to indulge in carnal desires have positioned themselves as voices of authority when it comes to sexual health. 

This violates clear and basic logic. If you’re going to take sex advice, it should be from someone who is still actively having sex. Otherwise, the counsel you’re getting is outdated and irrelevant because it ignores today’s relationship realities and is simply misguided.  

It’s time to introduce these self-proclaimed savants to cockblockers. 

A cockblocker is slang for someone or something that stands in the way of you having sex. These are my cockblockers for the argument that promotes having sex without condoms.

Cockblocker #1: Low and late condom use is why HIV is on the rise

Data from the Department of Health (DOH) show that condom use is late and low. The average age for the first sexual encounter is 16. Condom use starts at 18.  

That’s two years of unprotected sexual activity, during which you are exposed to sexually transmitted infection and unwanted pregnancy. 

The highest level of condom use among Men Who Have Sex with Men (MSM) is 46%. 

The DOH target is 80% condom use. UNAIDS recommends 90% condom use to stop the spread of HIV. We’re currently at 46%! 

Our current condom usage rate is lower than your most asshole ex-boyfriend. 

Meanwhile, there has been a 140% increase in yearly new infections from 2010-2016 making the Philippines the fastest growing HIV epidemic in the Asia Pacific Region.

The through-the-roof HIV infection rate is not because condoms don’t protect you against HIV. It is because we don’t use them enough.

That is a product of all those years of not actively promoting condoms and their benefits, and making them accessible to all. The conversation on condoms has been dominated by the intent to demonize these innocent yet potent rubber sheaths. It is no wonder that many are hesitant to use them, and ashamed to buy them. 

Cockblocker #2: Low and late condom and zero sex education are why teen pregnancy rates are skyrocketing

Every hour, 24 babies are born to teenage mothers. That translates to 500 babies every day.

An estimated 18,000 girls have two children by the time they are 19. Think about what you were doing when you were 19, and think about life being saddled with the responsibility of taking care of two children.  

Studies show that early pregnancy has a ripple effect on the life of a young girl: she will most likely not be able to finish school and consequently, will probably not find a job that pays enough to sustain her and her child.  

Health economist Alejandro Herrin quantified the economic opportunity loss for a teenage mother in a study for the UN Population Fund. Compared to a girl who has adequate education, a teen mother loses about P83,000 annually in earnings. Herrin estimates the overall cumulative effect is about P33 billion lost in potential earnings – equivalent to 1.1% of GDP.

What is most tragic and maddening about all this is that HIV and teen pregnancy are completely preventable with adequate sex education and access to condoms and birth control. The solution is staring at us in the face and biting us in the ass. It’s not rocket science, just the basics of sexual literacy.

Cockblocker #3: Condoms have evolved – our perception of them should, too

Condoms have evolved in the last 50 or so years since President Duterte probably last used them. 

“Condoms being unpleasurable are a thing of the past,” Emman Alfonso, Vice President of DKT Philippines, one of the largest manufacturers of condoms and contraceptive pills, told me.

Some of this has to do with texture. There are variants like Premiere Air that are of a softer texture than ordinary latex, giving you that almost skin-to-skin feeling. Other brands have similar almost skin variants, like Durex Invisible.  

Also, lubricant is your pleasure buddy. Alfonso breaks down the biology: “Even without a condom, if there is not enough lubrication, it is not pleasant.” 

The entire Premiere line, the most top-of-the-line of DKT brands, has been amped up with 30% more lubricant. Even TRUST condoms favored by the masses have been made thinner.  

Condoms can also be ribbed, dotted, and come with tingly additions like rings – all made to amplify sensations when using them. 

Cockblocker #4: Lube and the right fit enhance pleasure

A gem of advice from Joy Lynn Alegarbes of The Condom Project:  Putting a little bit of lube in the condom tip (the thing that looks like the sperm catcher) dials up the love glove’s affection levels. The scientific explanation is that the most sensitive part of man’s penis is the glans (head) because it has the highest concentration of nerves. 

Fit is also important. Be honest about uhm, size. No need to get the X-large condoms for posturing or ego boosting. Those will just slip off. And this should be put out there: it’s not so much about length as it is about girth.  

Don’t get a condom that is too tight that it will make you feel like you’re getting choked down there, and not in a way that you would usually like. Experiment and have fun while doing it. The good thing is you don’t need a partner to do so. :)  

Needless to say, anal sex also requires proper and adequate lubrication. Whatever way you like it, a tube of lube is your best bedside companion.

Cockblocker #5: The most satisfying thing about condoms is the unmatched protection they give

Correct and consistent use of condoms has been scientifically proven to effectively protect from both sexually transmitted infection and mistimed pregnancy. Neither pills, pulling out (aka withdrawal), nor injectables ensure the same kind of dual protection that condoms can.

Having sex with that kind of peace of mind – well, that can be pleasurable beyond your wildest dreams. – Rappler.com

Condoms image via Shutterstock

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

A common—though arguably fair—charge against those like myself born after 1986 is the way we relate to the memory of Martial Law and the EDSA Revolution. With social media as a battleground of voices especially among the youth, opposing opinions become amplified more than ever. 

Yet opinions are not the only things negotiated online in the post-EDSA era: historical facts become blurred and distorted as well.

Historical revisionism as symptom

Historical revisionism and the breakdown of the previous consensus over society’s value judgment of the both Martial Law and the EDSA Revolution has no singular cause. The persistence of traditional politics and the failure to fully live up to the promise of democratic restoration are only some of the culprits.  

The susceptibility of the youth to seek “alternative facts” and feign a sense of nostalgia for the golden days of Martial Law is a collective failure of our political, social, and pedagogical institutions. The tired romanticized narrative of EDSA – sometimes obscuring the complicated history behind it – has also admittedly alienated sectors of Philippine society. 

The consequences of historical revisionism are dire. The 1987 Constitution, the prime legacy of the Philippine’s emergence from dictatorship, is placed under a lens of intense scrutiny and challenge. Though not itself a perfect document, it is a product of democratic deliberation and a response to the lessons of history.

To tackle historical revisionism, it is important to understand that social memory is a function of power. Once we see that power (and disempowerment) reinforces history, we can understand the attraction of people today to seek alternative narratives to explain the state of society.

EDSA as past, EDSA as promise 

While social evolution is inevitable, historical facts must retain a sense of integrity. How then do we teach the youth to appreciate the past and be conscious to its direct link to the present and future? 

We invest in personal stories and narratives. At the same time, we reinforce our institutions to withstand the attacks of falsehood and revisionism.  

Our laws provide the infrastructure for remembering. At present, we have recognition and restitution mechanisms through Republic Act No. 10368, set to distribute reparations to victims of Martial Law. Under the same law, a Memorial Commission will also take on the work of restoring and preserving the history during Martial Law.

Legal responses to the distortion of historical facts are only the beginning. Ultimately, the answer is social and cultural. Whenever we say “never again”, we must cry in honor and commemoration and, at the same time, utter it in promise-keeping. 

History is not a static object of mere remembrance: it is living and breathing through the people. EDSA and People Power are not just relics of our history as a society.

The Revolution of 1986 must be a continuing revolution of our times. —Rappler.com

Ross Tugade is a lawyer with the Human Rights Victims’ Claims Board, the quasi-judicial body created by R.A. No. 10368. The views expressed here are her own.

Have you ever been to a novel place where you felt like you want to stay there forever? 

That is exactly what I experienced when I arrived at the World Trade Center in Pasay City more than a week ago to chase the first ever Big Bad Wolf event in the country.

It's the brainchild of BookXcess leads Andrew Yap and Jacqueline Ng, whose main mission is to extend the doors of opportunity to book readers and book lovers who normally couldn't afford to buy one. 

As soon as I stepped foot on the entrance of the building at around one in the morning, a pleasant aroma greeted me which emanated from the smorgasbord of books stationed per category across the 2-hectare floor area of the venue. The chill in my body was something I’ve never experienced before from the throngs of book sales I had been to. 

“This one is different,” I said to myself. “A glimpse of heaven.” 

I can still recall how my eyes glowed like the sun when I saw the sea of people walking and running and pushing their carts with the same exhilaration I’ve been curbing inside for days leading to opening day. I even thought for a moment that I was in an airport when I saw that some of the shoppers were carrying large bags and boxes, as if they're going to travel to a remote destination or roam around the world. 

The mood was convivial. Pop songs encompassed the enclosed space. The ushers wore their best smiles and first-rate patience. A stranger handed me his own basket. I unhurriedly checked the piles of titles from the right wing of the entryway to the section close to the center. 

I read the texts written on the back covers. I smelled them. Secretly. Memoirs. Novels. Non-fiction. 

I bought a total of 8 books for about P1,800: Asne Seierstad’s One of Us, David J. Linden’s Touch, Jon Ronson’s The Men Who Stare at Goats, Chris Kyle’s American Sniper, Scott Christianson’s 100 Documents that Changed the World, Michael Ondaatje’s In the Skin of A Lion, Divisadero, and a winner of the Booker Prize, The English Patient. 

While the books being sold at the Big Bad Wolf are "remaindered" and launched about 6 months or one year ago (which is why they are priced 60% to 80% lower than in regular bookstores), I still can't help but feel sorry for the scarce presence of Filipino literature in this mammoth book sale.

As I was about to pay at the cashier, I thought: "Would it be possible to see Filipino authors’ works being sold and showcased at a colossal and noteworthy affair like this someday? Will they be received the same way as J.K. Rowling and R.R. Martin?"

Truth be told, most of the of books I currently have were written by foreign authors. While I read F.H. Batacan, Bob Ong, Laurel Fantauzzo, and Miguel Syjuco, my ignorance on the content, tone, voice and structure of the worlds created by National Artists for Literature F. Sionil Jose, Nick Joaquin, Cirilo F. Bautista and the others is undeniable. I was in high school when I first heard of their names because we were required to read snippets of their artistry in our Filipino class. But when we graduated, and with no quizzes to take, time passed by, and I forgot about them. 

When you visit a branch of the Phlippines’ biggest bookstore these days, the themes of their top selling local books revolve around these 3: how to fall in love, how to move on, and how to be loved by your crush. These are the thin, self-help, mind-numbing books that can leave one to ask: “Hanggang dito na lang ba tayo (Is this all we're capable of)?"

The day after I watched his interview with Boy Abunda for National Arts Month, I swiftly searched for copies of National Artist Virgilio Almario’s poem collections in a luxurious mall just a couple of kilometers away from our home. I was appalled that I did not find any trace of his genius; instead I saw Leavs, Faudets, and Kaurs taking over the shelves. 

In the face of globalization, English is considered as the most valuable means of communication. As Filipinos, we take pride in our level of proficiency in this language. But with it comes the growing practice of degrading our roots and creativity, and the maltreatment of Filipino poems, essays, and novels, labelling them as corny, subpar, and insignificant. We have so many writers and creators who are discouraged by the feedback they receive from the people around them. There’s no money in writing. It’s useless. You’ll just be a slave all your life. Don’t waste your time in nonsense. Art is dead. 

Jose Rizal once said: "On this battlefield man has no better weapon than his intelligence, no other force but his heart."

Literature and the arts are the soul and heart of a country. They help us unravel some of the unspoken, subdued, and hidden truths around us so that we may understand ourselves better and be introduced to the richness of our history, which will fuel us to act, reevaluate our views, or change our course if the situation demands for it.

If we do not embrace our own gifts and treasures, and if we forget who we are, we may end up cruising on a highway with no direction or maps as references, and unknowingly get into a collision with our fellow travellers. 

Some intellectuals claim that we are not a reading people, but I believe that's inaccurate. I am convinced that we’re still searching for that spark of transcendence, of the drive to take another sound, earnest look at our dying local publishing industry.

We have to change our mindset that the works of foreign authors are innately superior and finer and more magnificent than what we can produce. We have to debunk the colonial mentality that’s deeply ingrained in our culture, or else we’ll live in an endless search for our identity. 

Not everyone can declare that they ran after a Big Bad Wolf at one in the morning on a Saturday. With all the courage I have, I did, and I hope you do, too. Forever. – Rappler.com 

Benre J. Zenarosa (zenarosabenre.wordpress.com) is a freelance writer. He's the recipient of the 2016 Lasallian Scholarum Award for Outstanding Published Column Article on Youth and Education in a Nationally Circulated Publication. He loves writing stories and letters in his head while riding a jam-packed train on his way to work.

Note: The Big Bad Wolf Book Sale is open 24 hours until February 25 at the World Trade Center in Pasay City. Admission is free.  

READ: PART 1: Open letter to Director General Ronald dela Rosa

These informal coping mechanisms have both positive and negative impacts on prison management. While they help the BuCor in the day-to-day administration, like cell administration, conflict management and implementation of prison programming, they also induce the creation of a predatory and corrupt prison culture.

For example, inmate Bosyos can maximize their position to extract money from inmates and utilize this money to bribe prison officials. Coupled with the structural problems noted above, like low salaries, these coping mechanisms facilitate corruption, drug dealing, and violence.

For example, corrupt prison guards can be in cahoots with a Bosyo to let a drug dealing inmate have access to cellphones and thus continue their illegal trade. This setup is further compounded by the evolution of the inmate pangkat (brotherhood), which was initially designed as the inmates’ collective voice against the abuses of the prison management into organized gangs that facilitate the drug trade.

Past inmate leaders have utilized their positions in the inmate hierarchy and the protection of their pangkats to control drug trade in their respective territories (carcel and presidio) in the Maximum. Though it must be recognized that only a few of the pangkat members actively engage in the drug trade.

These problems, we believe, will be the greatest challenges of the BuCor in effecting holistic and sustained reforms. While providing SAF support to the BuCor will indeed augment security by lessening inmate movement, privileges, cash flow, access to cellphones, etc, these are short-term benefits with limited effect in the correctional management.

In the first place, the SAF continues to be a separate and independent entity from the BuCor Custodial force. The SAF does not transfer its social technology, expertise, and techniques to the BuCor Custodial Force. In fact, the presence of the SAF creates organizational and operational conflicts between the two entities. The SAF’s restrictive and haphazard visitation policies, for example, undermine the established protocols of the BuCor Custodial Force.

There should be a way to integrate these two forces, through development of congruent policies, mutual training, and constant dialogue. Moreover, there should be a way to strengthen the BuCor Custodial Force through training and recruitment. The BuCor Personnel Training School, which recruits and trains its custodial officers, must be strengthened. These initiatives should pave the way for the development of an effective BuCor Custodial Force that will be necessary when the SAF augmentation services are eventually withdrawn.

Though helpful in the short-term, the SAF presence does not address the real long-term problems. In fact, the SAF simply sidesteps these conditions. The SAF is still dependent on the inmate informal coping structures and resources.

The SAF and the BuCor Custodial Force still rely on the inmate nanunungkulan system in managing the day-to-day operations of the prisons. Inmate kultureros still conduct the headcounts, inmate marshalls still provide security in the prison vicinity, inmate Bosyos still mediate conflicts, and inmate VIPs still provide medicine for sick inmates.

While there is nothing inherently wrong in this informal setup, it could always be abused by daring and corrupt inmates, prison guards, and SAF personnel. It has happened before, it will happen again. For example, our studies suggest that several previous SAF personnel had discreetly participated in the equally lucrative cigarette trade. While regularly changing SAF officers will address familiarization with the inmates, this will still be a palliative solution to an endemic problem.

Thus, a holistic solution is necessary. There is a need to address the problems of overcrowding, the lack of qualified personnel, and the inadequacy of resources.

Given your popularity to the adoring public and closeness to the President, you will be in the best position to advocate for these. When these structural limitations are addressed, the next step is to introduce a human-rights based approach to effective prison management.

These entail the proper classification of inmates, their housing assignment based on criminogenic risks, their participation in programming based on needs, and the documentation and assessment of inmate behaviors. These entail the adoption of a new penology that adheres to the concept of dynamic security.

For example, high-risk drug dealing and using inmates need to be identified and segregated and be provided with adequate supervision and monitoring. They also need to undergo drug treatment programs to overcome their financial dependence on the drug trade. With a correct classification system, you will realize that not more than a hundred inmates, of the more than 25,000 inmates in the NBP, are actively involved in the drug trade.

The SAF, with their extensive training in police work, can be limited to supervising the truly high-risk inmates, thus freeing the SAF from prison custodial work and letting them do the work that they are trained to do, such as law enforcement and combatting terrorists.

It will also spare the law-abiding inmates, many of whom simply want to serve their time with honor and dignity, from the repressive policies of the SAF. This will be more cost effective and beneficial to the moral regeneration of the inmates in the long run. Our current analyses suggest that sustained repressive SAF policies aggravate the pains of imprisonment, destroy inmate traditional coping mechanisms, and cut off inmates from their familial support, which are all conducive to the radicalization and cynicism of erstwhile law-abiding inmates. Eighteen months into SAF policies of lockdown and repression, we are afraid that this will eventually backfire.

An integrated program of action can be designed for each inmate based on empirically validated inmate programs. These interventions require the recruitment, training, and education of new cadres of BuCor officials to have a fresh start for the organization. These entail the pouring of resources in the front end.

Partnership with other governmental agencies in the criminal and penal system, like the BJMP, Parole and Probation Office, the provincial jails, the Philippine National Police, the Commission on Human Rights, and other organizations, using a “whole of government” approach, would also be necessary to achieve the principles of effective prison management.

In closing, we wish you well in your impending stint as head as the BuCor. We write this long letter with a heartfelt desire to see you succeed. One of us, Dr Raymund Narag, was once a former inmate, imprisoned for 7 years for a crime he did not commit. He was eventually acquitted by the courts. He is now a professor in Criminology and Criminal Justice, and he just wishes to share with you the product of 20 years of studying and advocating for prison reforms.

He has conducted numerous trainings for the BuCor, the BJMP, the courts, and the CHR, to popularize best practices in Philippine penal and criminal justice system. The other author, Dr Clarke Jones, had been conducting prison studies and training programs for the BJMP and BuCor for the past 10 years. He has interviewed hundreds of inmates and pangkat leaders and correctional officers under 3 Philippine presidents. He has longitudinal understanding of the development and challenges of the BuCor and the correctional system through the years. 

We do believe that with an informed and dedicated leadership, such as yours, the men and women of the BuCor, who had been toiling hard to improve the quality of prison service, will find a champion in you.

Thank you for reading our long letter.

 In service of the Filipino people.

– Rappler.com

Raymund E. Narag, PhD, teaches at the Department of Criminology and Criminal Justice of Southern Illinois University Carbondale while Clarke Jones, PhD, is from the Research School of Psychology, Australia National University.

A year ago, the White House barred some members of the press from attending an informal briefing, a rarity in a country that was regarded as the beacon of democracy. Excluding reporters from The New York Times, CNN, Politico, BuzzFeed, and the Los Angeles Times – all accredited by the White House – was then part of President Donald Trump’s intensifying war against the news media.

Today, President Rodrigo Duterte is taking a leaf from Trump’s undemocratic playbook by banning journalists from Rappler, Pia Ranada and Maria Ressa, from Malacañang. Ranada is an accredited reporter and has been covering Duterte since he assumed office, while Ressa is Rappler CEO and executive editor. However, the ban is not just for a single event, as what happened in the White House, but for an extended period.

The New York Times, in its editorial then, pointed out that nothing of this sort happened during various crises that gripped US presidents, including Watergate, the Iran-contra scandal, and the Monica Lewinsky affair.

Neither did this happen under Duterte’s predecessors. This is the first time in the post-Marcos era that a ban from the entire Malacañang compound has been slapped on journalists.

Corazon Aquino, Fidel Ramos, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Joseph Estrada, and Benigno Aquino III had their run-ins with the media but they never banned news organizations from the entire compound. At no time during the “Hello, Garci” scandal, Mamapasano fiasco, Baby Arenas affair, and Estrada impeachment were reporters barred from Malacañang for critical reporting. 

There were times when these presidents were upset by certain news reports. Some held off granting interviews or flatly refused these requests. One president, we were told, gave a gag order to members of the Cabinet only when it came to a particular news outlet.

Sure, there was tension between the president, his aides and journalists, an unavoidable occurrence in a democracy where the media dutifully pursue their role as watchdogs. But the interaction was civil and a certain respect for institutions remained.

What makes Duterte different and dangerous is the context in which the ban is happening. He has weakened the country’s democracy by undermining institutions including the judiciary, Office of the Ombudsman, the Commission on Human Rights, and the media. His war on drugs has led to thousands of killings, creating a climate of fear. He has threatened his opponents and showed utter vindictiveness, the most disturbing reminder of which is Senator Leila de Lima’s year-long detention.

Duterte’s contempt for the media has resulted in the decision of the Securities and Exchange Commission to shutter Rappler. He has been going against the Inquirer and ABS-CBN whose owners, he has always said, are oligarchs who take advantage of their position to violate laws. Inquirer is negotiating its sale to a new owner, Ramon Ang, a wealthy businessman close to Duterte; and ABS-CBN is on the edge as Duterte has vowed to block the renewal of its franchise which expires within his term.

Personalistic style, yes men

Two things have surfaced, yet again, during this recent presidential tantrum: Duterte’s personalistic style of leadership and the inability – bordering on paralysis – of his aides to persuade their boss to stand tall and remind him of his earlier statement that he is not the enemy of the press. 

"I am not your enemy,” he said in a speech at the Malacañang Press Corps Christmas party he hosted last year. “Your quest for truth, that's your business, not mine. At the end of the day, it's not my property.”

It is easy to imagine the Executive Secretary Salvador Medialdea, his Senior Deputy Menardo Guevarra, and the Spokesperson Harry Roque, shaking in their suits, dredging their minds for reasons to justify a decision that goes against this recent pronouncement. Fear has taken the better of them.

It turns out that this declaration about having an adversarial relationship with the media is simply a shell. Duterte's latest action of banning Ranada from Malacañang, denying her access to sources of information, in effect curtailing her freedom to do her duty as a journalist, reflects his true attitude. Everything is personal. As Roque put it, “Nabuwisit siya. (He was annoyed.) ”

Roque likened the President to a homeowner who, in a fit, threw out a “rude” guest, referring to Ranada. This means that Duterte personalizes his relationship with the press. That he considers them “guests” shows that he thinks the reporters owe their presence in Malacañang to him. He has given them the privilege to enter his office.

First, Malacañang is not the private home of Duterte. It is where he temporarily holds office while he is president of the Philippines. Taxpayers’ money sustain the operations of his office, including his billions of pesos in intelligence and confidential funds, and his salary.

Second, Ranada is not a guest, far from it. She is a journalist assigned by her news organization to cover the President.  

The president is an elected official who is accountable to the public. The press reports on him, his statements, actions, behavior, comings and goings – as long as they have to do with public interest. He is fair game.

Duterte has apparently mistaken the friendliness and politeness of reporters for loyalty. He has given Ranada and other reporters access, bantered with them, exchanged laughs, showed them acts of kindness. In return, he expects them to be grateful and report nothing unsettling about him and people close to him.

What is disturbing is that it is not only the President who thinks this way. At least one reporter expressed a similar view.

This truly reflects the sad state of journalism in the Philippines. It shows the swath of reality that independent journalism has not yet taken root in our society. I’ve said this before: in my heart is a core of profound sadness that in our country, we seem not to understand the meaning of independence and the role of journalists.

There is such a thing as heeding the call of our profession: to shed light on dark corners. This, we cannot stray from. – Rappler.com

The Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development (CARRD) has been involved in major agrarian reform campaigns staged after the 1986 EDSA Revolution. Together with other organizations and farmer groups, we’ve made a stand against the oppression experienced by landless farmers all over the country.

We maintained – and we still do – that land, being the primary driver of economic development in the rural areas, is a right of men and women whose bent backs and sweating brows nourished our children with food.

But times have changed. We know enough to acknowledge that mobilizations aren’t what they used to be. In spite of valid reasons to picket, we see our numbers dwindle. We wanted to state – with full arrogance – that this is because there’s nothing left to fight for.

Lots of our farmers have managed to improve their land tenure, improved their socio-economic conditions, sent their children to colleges and universities to become urban professionals and avoid the gruesome work on the land, and retired to become managers of the farms that they got under the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP).

But if this is the premise for all, then CARRD will be the first to let agrarian reform die with the first generation of peasants who fought sweat and blood for the land that they till. (READ: What if our farmers give up on us?) 

But we know, as you do, that this is not the case.  

CARP was introduced shortly after the 1986 EDSA uprising. Despite opposition, Republic Act 6657 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law (CARL) was passed in 1988. CARL went through a lot of amendments; the most recent of which was in 2009 through RA 9700 or the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program Extension with Reforms (CARPER).

Under CARPER, the issuance of Notices of Coverage (NOC) for new agrarian lands must be completed by June 30, 2014. By 2016, roughly 8.2 million hectares of land had been distributed to 5.4 million agrarian reform beneficiaries in the country.

The “deadline” for the issuance of NOC does not signify the end of CARP, although a lot of landlord-leaning institutions interpreted this as such. But the Constitution is also very clear on this matter. According to Article XIII, sections 4-6, the Constitution guarantees the just distribution of land, support to agriculture, and resettlement of farmers and farm workers in the State’s agricultural estates. (READ: Completing land reform in PH to cost P98B) 

Yet, as of June 2016, almost 600,000 hectares of agricultural land remain undistributed.

Major issues

Landowner resistance is one of the most well-known issues in agrarian reform. We know about high-profile cases of violence and constant threats against agrarian reform beneficiaries to keep them from occupying the land, or where land owners stall the land acquisition and distribution process through various methods, which, while not high-profile, are just as problematic.

Some of these methods include filing of cases against farmers and even Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) personnel, legal measures to bog down the land acquisition and distribution in almost every step of the way, and subdividing their land to relatives to take advantage of the 5-hectare retention area, while not losing the land altogether.

Then there’s the individualization of collective certificate of land ownership award (CLOA). These were issued during the 1990s to fast-track land distribution, especially in sugarcane plantations. However, while collective titles show the total area owned by farmers collectively, they don’t delineate individual lots.

Not only does this create boundary disputes among  agrarian reform beneficiaries, it spawns to inheritance and issues of conflicting claims. There are even cases when the collective titles don’t have an annexed list of farmers, resulting to claims that cannot be easily validated.

Property rights cannot be altogether secured if the farmers are not able to complete paying their land amortization. Most of them have not even started. This is because, by policy, Landbank cannot receive amortization payments from landholdings with survey discrepancies, or in collectively titled landholdings, pending for subdivision.

Agrarian reform is uncertain in a federal context

The DAR convened the 2018 National Summit of CARP Stakeholders last January 25-26 in Clark, Pampanga. Acknowledging these issues, DAR expressed its commitment to ensure that inputs from the invited organizations would be incorporated in their strategic plan.

But the question is: how can the call for more aggressive CARP implementation fit within a federal context? If the implementation of agrarian reform will be through the states, as what can be assumed from the system of government being proposed, then agrarian reform may not be implemented at all in powerful landowner states.

The future of agrarian reform is unclear. While close coordination between CARP implementing agencies and stakeholders promises an effective method of case resolution, it can only go so far. With no end in sight for these issues, hopefully something positive will come out from the initiatives of the  agrarian reform beneficiaries, civil society, and members of the government. – Rappler.com 

Joe-Anna Marie Abelinde and Luis de la Rosa work in the Research and Advocacy Unit of the Center for Agrarian Reform and Rural Development. CARRD is a not-for-profit organization supporting agrarian reform beneficiary cooperatives in Batangas, Iloilo, and Capiz. It promotes farmers’ access to productive resources and enable them to make informed decisions about environment-friendly, non-discriminatory, and sustainable livelihoods.