For some time now, when we commemorate the People Power Revolution of 1986, there has been criticism that it has failed us.

This has come from different groups through the years. This year, however, we have a very strange set of bedfellows. The traditional Left, of course, has been saying this for decades. These days, the Marcos loyalists, traditional enemies of the Left, are also bashing the EDSA revolution. They are joined too by pro-Duterte forces who have shifted from being buddies of the traditional Left to being their arch-rivals in the course of a year. And they have been saying the same thing.

Strange bedfellows

In a previous article, I discussed how simplistic and misguided it is to consider the EDSA revolution as being merely about the Aquinos. This, of course, suits the agenda of the Marcoses who were forced out of power by a people who could no longer stand their plunder and human rights abuses.

Nowadays, the idea that the EDSA revolution is merely about the "yellows" is also a revision of history that suits the propagandists of the Duterte government. This government, after all, hangs on to power by polarizing our people. One way it accomplishes this is by creating a class of people like drug addicts or “yellows” whom it demonizes so that the people can unthinkingly dismiss any criticism as the work of the devil.

As anyone who has criticized this narcissistic government has experienced, one immediately gets trolled for being supposedly an addict, a drug protector, or a “yellow”. I have experienced this myself, despite the fact that I have been critical of every president of the Philippines, including Emilio Aguinaldo.

Not surprisingly, many people have now decided that, if holding government accountable is yellow, then they must be yellow. (A word of caution to the spreaders of fake news and prejudice, these tools may be highly effective but they can be quite short-lived.)

The Left, of course, has a bit more substance behind the idea that EDSA has failed. They point to the continuing poverty and inequity of Philippine society. Land reform, a prerequisite to social justice and economic well-being remains an unaccomplished dream. Workers rights remain a myth. Most sadly, human rights violations have returned with a vengeance.

It may even be worse. According to an urban poor woman I know, “Dati kalabanin mo si Marcos, kalaboso ka. Ngayon mukha ka lang payat, puyat, gutom o sobrang mahirap, patay ka agad.”

(Before, if you opposed Marcos you were imprisoned. Today, if you only looked malnourished, sleepless, hungry, or impoverished, you're dead immediately.) The Marcos dictatorship resorted to torture, arbitrary arrests and detention, and summary execution of activists. It did not – as this regime is doing to those it claims are addicts – resort to mass murder.

But the traditional Left has one thing in common with the Marcos and Duterte apologists. They all blame Cory Aquino and her son, Benigno Aquino III. That is why they find themselves with very strange allies in their assessment that the People Power Revolution was a failure.

Revolutions and increments

There is another thing that the Left has in common with the Marcos apologists and the Duterte loyalists – their concept of how we achieve the changes we need. All 3 factions want an abrupt overhaul of the system. The traditional Left talks of an armed revolution. Marcos called for a “revolution from the center” and Duterte’s campaign slogan was “change is coming”.

My concept of change is one that understands that abrupt changes alone can often be catastrophic. As one farmer I met long ago told me, “Kapag tuyong-tuyo ang lupa, ang biglang bagsak ng malakas na ulan ay nakakasama pa. Inaagos at lalong nakakalbo. Mabuti pa kung ambon muna. Dahang-dahang lumalambot ang lupa at hinahanda ito para sa malakas na ulan.”

(When the soil is very dry, a sudden and strong rain makes things worse. The top soil merely gets washed away. It is better to have gentle rain first so that the ground can slowly absorb water and then it is ready to absorb the stronger rain.)

In my opinion, institutional reform and strengthening are the gentle rain necessary to ensure that we do not get swept away by a deluge. It is the strengthening of our democratic institutions and the rule of law that will ensure that genuine change does occur whether this is achieved slowly or by a radical overhaul.

What are these institutions and rules? Many of these are enshrined in our 1987 Freedom Constitution. The Commission on Human Rights and the Office of the Ombudsman, for example, are worthy institutions that are mandated by the basic charter to prevent corruption and protect the citizens.

The bill or rights which includes freedom of the press and protections against extrajudicial killings, the insulation of civil service from partisan politics, the separation of powers that ensures the checks and balances against absolute power – are safeguards that should be strengthened.

Institutional strengthening is a long process that is not glamorous nor is it the subject of political slogans. It is patient and meticulous work that demands great leaders and an active citizenry. It is something that must be achieved by generations over time.

Building institutions

Did EDSA fail? When this regime threatens press freedom, imprisons its critics, and arbitrarily kills its citizens, then it fails us and EDSA. It reverses all the steps we have taken towards democracy and progress. These steps are marked by sudden breaks such as the revolts against Spanish colonialism, the Philippine Revolution of 1896, the struggle for independence from the US, the EDSA revolution.

What is not so easily commemorated are the incremental changes that have been achieved by our people in our long struggle to be free and prosperous. The defense of human rights, the struggle for a free press, the fight against corruption, the assertion of national sovereignty – these things are not moments but are the ways by which we build trust in each other and our social institutions.

Did EDSA succeed? So long as there are people who struggle against extrajudicial killings, protest against the suppression of the media, speak out against fake news, fight against the loss of the independence of the legislature and judiciary from the executive – then EDSA has not failed us and we have not failed ourselves. – Rappler.com

Hindi tayo sentimental. Sa loob ng 32 taon, pumusyaw ang diwa ng EDSA habang nagpatong-patong ang mga dekada. 

Marami sa mga namuno sa EDSA’y uugod-ugod na habang ang iba'y pumanaw na. Marami sa kabataang nakilahok sa EDSA’y nag-move on na sa kanilang mga buhay at propesyon. Parang balat ng butiking hinubad nila ang ideyalismo. 

Halos multo na lamang ang diwa ng EDSA na bumubulong sa atin. May hatid siyang 5 tagubilin.

1. Ang EDSA ay hindi lamang tungkol sa mga Aquino

Madaling i-reduce ang EDSA kina Ninoy Aquino at ang maybahay niya at dating presidenteng si Cory Aquino. Isama mo na ang kandidatong sumakay at nanalo nang pumanaw ang kanyang ina noong 2009, si Noynoy. 

Mitsa o catalyst ng EDSA ang pagpaslang kay Ninoy. Pero ang powder keg na sumabog ay isang komplikadong recipe: gahamang diktador, nagkapangil na oposisyon, tumitinding krisis pang-ekonomiya at pagkaligalig ng mamamayan.

2. Hindi ito “bloodless coup”

Libo-libong magigiting na martyr – marami sa kanila’y mga aksidenteng bayani lamang – ang namatay bago pumutok ang bulkan ng galit ng taumbayan. ‘Yan ang EDSA.

Sa madaling salita, hindi ito umusbong magdamag. Hindi ito instant noodles. Prequel ang dalawang dekada sa ilalim ng rehimeng Marcos na hitik ng paglabag sa karapatang pantao, arbitraryong pag-aaresto, pambubusal sa media at extrajudicial executions ng mga aktibista at pinaghihinalaang komunista.

3. Huwag paloko sa mga rebisyonista

Nakamamatay ang kamangmangan. Tulad ng post na ito ni Mocha Uson na pinipintasan ang umano’y “drama” ng mga madre. (Salamat, Ed Lingao.)  

Madalas na linya ng anak ng diktador na si Bongbong Marcos na paraiso ang bagong Lipunan ni Ferdinand Marcos. Ito ang sagot ng foundation para sa mga biktima ng Martial Law, ang Bantayog ng mga Bayani, kay Bongbong: "Ferdinand Marcos wrecked Congress, the courts, and the bureaucracy. He prostituted the military. He shackled the country with debts. Your parents stole billions of the people’s money and from their political opponents. He had a nuclear plant built that never operated but which the country has to pay for in loans. He had thousands jailed, abducted, tortured, or killed."

4. Huwag maliitin ang human rights, ililigtas nito ang buhay mo

“I don’t care about human rights.” Ito ang madalas bigkasin ni Pangulong Rodrigo Duterte.

Ang human rights ay hindi komplikadong konsepto, at lalong hindi mo puwedeng isnabin. Mahal mo ba ang karapatan mong mag-post sa social media? Magsuot ng mini-skirt o magpagupit ng pinakausong hairstyle? Halimbawa yan ng basic right to self expression.

Kasama sa payong ng mga karapatang ito ang karapatan ng media na magpahayag. Hindi perpekto ang media sa Pilipinas ngunit mahalaga ang naging papel nito sa pagsisiwalat ng kabuktutan ng rehimong Marcos.

Suportahan ang malayang pamamahayag. Huwag mong palampasin ang pambabastos sa mga journalist sa sarili mong espasyo sa social media.

Huwag kang pumayag na mawala ang malayang talastasan ng mga kuro-kuro. Hindi pagtataksil sa bayan ang bumatikos sa gobyerno.

Ayon sa tinaguriang Nelson Mandela ng Tsina na si Liu Xiaobo, “Freedom of expression is the foundation of human rights, the source of humanity, and the mother of truth.” (Pundasyon ng karapatang pantao ang kalayaang magpahayag, na siyang pinagmumulan ng humanidad at siyang ina ng katotohanan.)

Ang pagrespeto sa karapatang pantao ang magliligtas sa buhay mo. Kung wala ito, puwede kang masampahan ng inimbetong mga kaso, maaari kang makulong at matortyur. 


5. Bigo ba ang EDSA? Hindi pa tapos ang kabanatang 'yan

Ninoy Aquino: “What can one man do if the Filipino people love their slavery, if the Filipino people have lost their voice and would not say no to a tyrant, what can one man do. I have no army, I have no following, I have no money, and I only have my indomitable spirit.”

Jose W. Diokno: “We are one nation with one future, a future that will be as bright or as dark as we remain united or divided.”

Jose Almonte: The 1986 People Power revolution was not merely a people’s collective exertion against a tyrannical regime. More importantly, it was a people’s war to recover their dignity and freedom.

Mahabang panahon halos nawalan ng relevance ang selebrasyon ng EDSA sa buhay natin.

Sa harap ng impunity o kawalan ng pananagutan sa mahigit 7,000 biktima ng extrajudicial killings, sa harap ng atake sa mga institusyong nagtatanggol ng karapatan at nag-uusig sa mga tiwali, sa harap ng paniniil at harassment ng media – higit kailanman, makabuluhan ang pagbabalik-tanaw sa EDSA.

Mapalad tayo sa mayamang pamana ng mga tagapagtanggol ng kalayaan, mula kay Rizal, Andres Bonifacio, hanggang sa mga madre at estudyante ng people power. 

Huwag payagang maagnas ang moral fiber natin bilang isang bansa.

Mahalagang isapuso ang sinabi ni Milan Kundera tungkol sa pakikibaka sa mapang-abusong kapangyarihan: The struggle of man against power is the struggle of memory against forgetting.

(Ang paghulagpos ng tao laban sa kapangyarihan ay ang paghulagpos natin laban sa paglimot.)  – Rappler.com

How convenient it is for many adults to blame the youth. They are the perfect scapegoat for the chaos around us. After all they walk out of their classrooms and take to the streets.

Look at the comments on social media and you'll be hard-pressed to find any positive remark. To be sure some of them are made by trolls. But what they say resonates with what we hear even at home.

"These kids don't know what they're taking about." "They should be studying." "These students are wasting our taxes." "How much were they paid?" "They should shut up and support the administration."

Generational gap?

It is quite typical for adults to react with derision. In the sociology of generations, one explanation is that they are threatened by young people's rise to power.

The threat is to be expected. These youth are asserting themselves in realms that adults feel are their own.

Think about it. None of the remarks above directly engage what young people are fighting for. The issues are endless: press freedom, human rights, Charter Change, public transportation, and the war on drugs.

But instead they say that these "children" need to "shut up" and "grow up".

That's not all. What is worse is that the administration itself has retaliated with its own threats of expelling students.

It is thus a mistake to treat the tension as a simple generational gap between "wise" adults and "naive" kids.

On the contrary, what we are seeing is that powerful people – with public opinion on their side – are willing to wield their resources against the future leaders of this country.

An act of sheer folly.

These adults are only hiding behind their age. They pretend to have wisdom and sobriety but could not resist attacking the youth.

These young people do not have anything apart from idealism. Idealism is their only weapon to hold their adults accountable.

How tragic therefore that these adults, who once were youth, have turned their back on their own idealism. No wonder they are threatened by the arrival of the new generation.

Visionaries

In other words, there's a good chance that these young people see what their adults do not.

Protesting or otherwise, they yearn for a better future. This aspiration drives much of what they do. They study, they work, or they do both at the same time.

Admittedly some of them fail. Some of them take a long time to finish their education. Some don't even finish at all. But this is not to say they do not long for a bright future.

In many cases, their vision of the bright future is for themselves and their families – to get them out of poverty. This is the reason we cannot blame many of them who are aiming for employment outside the country – even if those jobs may not be prestigious.

For others, however, their vision is much wider. They want a just society, one in which their peers may no longer need to get out of the country just to get out of poverty.

They are siding with ordinary folks who struggle on a daily basis to get to work and earn a living.

This is because as early as now they already know the hardships of life in our society. And they believe that things can be so much better.

Redemption

In other words when youth take to the streets, it is not because they do not have anything better to do.

They do not organize themselves to stir up trouble. They are in their respective movements to call for justice. If adults could only see beyond their prejudice they would be embarrassed to admit that these youth are not giving up on their future.

This is what makes them far more mature than the adults who see them as "children" who "need to grow up".

In the final analysis, these youth are fighting not just for themselves, but also for the rest of us. Whether or not we agree is secondary. The least we could do is to listen to their wisdom.

Even better if we could throw our support behind them.

They have the energy and idealism that many adults may have already lost – either to age or to corruption. In this light, these young people are offering the rest of us redemption. – Rappler.com

Jayeel Cornelio, PhD is a visiting professor at the Chinese University of Hong Kong. He is on leave from the Ateneo de Manila where he is Associate Professor and the Director of the Development Studies Program. Follow him on Twitter @jayeel_cornelio.

(Dahil pinagsalita ako noon tungkol sa “kahalagahan ng social media literacy sa laban against fake news” sa UP Diliman College of Mass Communication)

Bueno, dahil sa ease-of-use kaya tayo napasadlak sa naglipanang korupsiyon ng newsfeed at iba pang virtual sharing platforms na tangay-tangay natin sa iba pang aspekto ng ating buhay.

Sisimulan ko sa malapit na nakaraan: telebisyon. Tutal, dito nagsimula ang sinasabi ni cool dude Jean Baudrillard tungkol sa virality ng mensahe – na papasukin ng telebisyon ang kasulok-sulokan ng tahanan, na nangyayari na nga. May telebisyon ang karamihan sa atin sa kusina, sala, kuwarto.

Tatayo ako dati, lalapit sa telebisyon, pipihitin ang pihitan para ilipat ang tsanel ng telebisyon naming Nivico ang tatak na lilima ang tsanel, tatlo pa ang sa gobyerno: 4, 9, 13. 

Nang masira ang black-and-white TV, bumili kami ng colored at de-remote control. Ang dali nang maglipat ng tsanel at magpalit ng volume. Ease-of-use.

Dati, kailangan kong makauwi sa bahay para kalikutin ko ang makinilyang simbigat ng tangke. Tapos naging desktop computer na may maingay na printer. Ngayon, dala ko na ang uugod-ugod kong laptop kahit saang lugar na mayroon akong puwedeng pagpatungan. Ease-of-use.

Dati, pumupunta ako nang personal sa opisina ng gusto kong pagtrabahuhan para magpasa ng resumé o curriculum vitae. Itatanong ko sa HR kung kailan ang interbiyu. Siyempre, sasabihin nila,  “We will call you later.” 

Tapos naging email na lang ang pagpapasa ng aplikasyon. O kaya, ipadadala ko sa hinalong kalamay na portal ng mga naghahanap ng trabaho, at doon, parang paninda sa palengkeng bubusisiin, electronically, ng mga pihikang kompanya ang mga dokumentong ipinasa ko. 

Kaso pupunta pa ako sa computer shop para makapagpasa ng aplikasyon sa trabaho dahil wala pa akong matinong internet connectivity sa bahay (wala pa rin naman ngayon sa kabila ng limpak-limpak na ibinabayad ko magkaroon lang ng koneksiyon sa virtual na mundo, 24/7). Pero sige, ease-of-use na rin.

Ngayon, nasa smartphone ko na ang lahat ng kailangan ko na, dati, noong Nokia 5110i Finland with blue backlight pa lang ang gamit ko, text at tawag lang ang magagawa. Isama pa ang paglalaro ng Snake na walang ulo. Ang dali nang mangalikot ng impormasyon. Ease-of-use.

Nang ilunsad at lumaganap ang Facebook, hindi ko na kailangang makipagkumustahan nang personal sa mga kaibigan. Pupusuan ko na lang ang status nila. Ibig sabihin nun, mahal ko sila. Sad face kapag sad. Smiley kapag nagpapanggap akong masaya sa nabalitaang status nila sa buhay. Ease-of-use.

Nagbubukas tayo ng multiple tabs. Sabay-sabay halos na tinutunghayan ang nasa tabs na ito. As if naman mabilis ang Internet natin. Duh. Tapos, ginawa ng mga programmer ni Mark Zuckerberg – na sigurado akong ang iniisip ay ang prinsipyo ng ease-of-use – na mabilis nating matutunghayan ang lahat by way of scroll-up-and-down newsfeed. Mabilis. Touch screen pa, na lalong nagpapabilis sa scrolling. Tapos naka-smarter-than-user phone na tayong lahat. Tigdadalawa ang iba. Ang daming app na nagpapadali ng buhay.

Sinabayan ng unlitext at unli-call, free-data, unli-data, libreng Netflix, at downloadable scandal ang lahat ng ito. May word processor na sa telepono ko, makakapagsulat na ako nang walang laptop (gaya ng ginagawa ko ngayon, as in ngayon sa kubeta ng aparment ko – talk about multitasking, jejeje). 

Lahat ng ito, dahil sa banal na ngalan ng prinsipyong padaliin ang paggamit sa mga binayaran at inutang na bagay-bagay. Ease-of use. At lahat pa rin ito, bukod sa pera, may kapalit na nagpapanggap na pangangailangan ang ating atensyon. 

***

Binabasa ko ngayon ang One Summer: America, 1927 ni Bill Bryson (Doubleday, 2013). Sabi rito, noong 1927 nagsimulang umusbong ang tabloid journalism. Ang ibang pahayagan sa Estados Unidos, pinauso ang sensationalism.

Binasa ng mga “mamahayag” ang utak ng mga biktima at suspek sa kaso ng karumal-dumal na pagpatay, na staple sa tabloid noon (well, hanggang ngayon naman). Para tuloy naging suspense thriller ang trato sa mga balita.

Mayroon daw na talagang walang hibo ng katotohanan, kumbaga, kuwento na talaga. Malay ba ng mambabasa kung tama o totoo ang detalye. Lahat ng ito, sa ngalan ng malawakang sirkulasyon, pera, kita, kapangyarihan. So hindi na bago ang jafeyk na balita. Ang bago lang ay ang platform, social media, at internet, na tigmak ng ease-of-use.

Pansinin: sa lahat ng madaliang kilos natin upang matunghayan ang nangyayari, lumalabo na ang pundasyon kung saan dapat manggaling ang pananaligang katotohanan. Basta nilunod ng likes, comments, o share – virality – ang “mensahe,” mukhang nagiging totoo. At least sa isip ng nag-share at tumanggap ng mensahe na tamad nang magsuri. Bakit pa nga naman nila susuriin ang link o “about us” o by-line kung bogus o hindi ang artikulo? Ang mahalaga, nasuportahan at na-reinforce ng pekeng impormasyon ang kanilang paniniwala. 

Nilulunod ng malawakang gamit ng teknolohiya ang katotohanan; nabibigyan ng slant, ng anggulo, binibihisan ng detalye. Wala nang hubad na katotohanan, bes. Nagbagong anyo na, depende sa kung saan ito lumulunsad o pinalulunsad ng mga nagpapakawala ng mali o niretokeng impormasyon.

Ano’ng gagawin? Iwasan o tuluyan na bang ipagbawal ang platform? Ang teknolohiya? Siyempre hindi. Well, hindi ko kayang ipayo dahil ako man ay lulong sa Facebook. (Halleer, baka nga sa newfeed ng Facebook ninyo ito unang nabasa, di ba?) Ang nais ko lang namang ipaalala, nawawala na ang pagninilay at pagsusuri, ang pagtitimbang-timbang. Dahil sa ano? Platform at teknolohiya? Hindi siguro. Siguro, at malakas ang kutob kong ito nga, dahil sa ease-of-use.

Dahil habang hibang tayo sa ease-of-use ng kung anumang aparatong hawak natin, lumalayo naman ang karamihan sa ease-of-use ng kanilang utak at ng kanilang damdamin. At sige na nga, to a certain extent, sa ease-of-use ng puso higit sa kakayahan nitong magpadaloy ng dugo, kapalit ang ease-of-use ng abenida ng impormasyong nagmamadali: social media.

Teka, wala na pala akong tissue paper. – Rappler.com 

Bukod sa pagtuturo ng creative writing, pop culture, and research sa Unibersidad ng Santo Tomas, writing fellow din si Joselito D. Delos Reyes, PhD, sa UST Center for Creative Writing and Literary Studies, at research fellow sa UST Research Center for Culture, Arts and Humanities. Board member siya ng Philippine Center of International PEN. Siya ang kasalukuyang tagapangulo ng Departamento ng Literatura ng UST. 

One of the things that the Tax Reform for Acceleration and Inclusion (Train) Law does is put a price on carbon.

Carbon pricing aims to reflect the actual cost of carbon by integrating the cost of the pollution into a fuel’s price. Historically, when we burn coal or use petroleum products, we generally do not pay for the actual price of the carbon emissions brought about by these fossil fuels. However, carbon pricing is a commonly used climate change policy, utilized by many states in the United States, countries in the European Union, and even Mexico.

Although Train's coverage is broad, it also contains a form of carbon pricing. It imposes higher taxes on coal and petroleum products, the largest sources of CO₂ in the Philippines, on a per-ton or per-liter basis. Taxation on these products began this year, and will continue to grow through 2020.

So, if we treat the Train tax rates purely as a carbon pricing mechanism, with a price per ton of CO₂, what is the equivalent carbon rate? Doing some back-of-the-envelope calculations, I came up with this list of prices per ton of CO₂ using the 2020 tax rates per commodity:

There is an obvious variation between the carbon taxes across the fuels. We have coal in the low end, taxed at rates comparable to the carbon tax of Mexico ($3.50) and the US Northeast’s cap-and-trade system ($2.15-$3.00). On the other end of the spectrum, we have the tax on gasoline, which, in terms of a price on carbon, is closer to Sweden’s ($150-$170).

Though not explicitly a carbon tax, Train acts in a similar way to a carbon tax. The law incorporates some of the costs of carbon pollution into the price of the commodities taxed. This sends a price signal to consumers to pollute less. This could have effects on the electricity and transport sectors.

Effect on the electricity sector

Despite the increase in the cost of importing it, coal will still likely be a significant part of the Philippines’ energy mix for the next 10 to 15 years. The industry as a whole has invested heavily in the past 7 years on coal, with an additional 2,500 MW in new power plant capacity. Because those assets are already up and running, it is in the best interest of the plant owners to keep them running, even at low margins. This is in addition to the fact that the Train tax on coal is not significant enough to send a price signal to the market that will shift right away from coal.

However, Train gives renewable energy an area to grow, specifically in the small island grids not connected to the main Philippine grid. Small island power grids, commonly known as SPUG (Small Power Utility Group) areas, are generally powered by diesel, bunker, and other petroleum-based fuel generators. Currently, on-grid electricity users subsidize the cost of electricity in SPUG areas through the missionary electrification charge. Now, with Train’s tax on petroleum products, this tax will be passed on to subsidizing on-grid users.

To avoid increasing electricity rates for the on-grid consumers, SPUG areas should consider shifting to renewable energy and microgrid technologies. Renewable energy and battery technology have become cheaper and better in the last 10 years and promise to continue to improve in the future.

Effect on the transportation sector

Train’s incentives for a low carbon transport sector is obvious from several of its key provisions. Diesel, gasoline, and LPG – all land transport fuels – are taxed a relatively high rate per ton of carbon generated, even higher compared to other countries with carbon pricing policies. 

On top of that, there is now a much higher excise tax on automobiles. This excise tax is halved for hybrid vehicles, and inapplicable to electric vehicles. This creates an incentive to purchase hybrid or electric vehicles. Though the excise tax on automobiles does not apply to trucks, cargo vans, buses, and jeepneys, the higher price on petroleum-based fuel might spur the transition to low-carbon hybrid and electric forms of mass transportation.

All in all, the Train Law may be an effective climate policy in terms of reducing carbon pollution. It puts a price on carbon pollution and may be the key to low carbon innovation in the Philippines. However, significant complementary policies must first be implemented to enable this low carbon innovation. – Rappler.com 

Juan Antonio Oposa is a lawyer specializing in renewable energy. 

In a recent meeting of businessmen, socioeconomic planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia admitted that China’s infrastructure loans are more expensive than Japan’s.

Yet when asked why the Duterte government still wants to borrow huge loans from China, Pernia offered various answers like, “we cannot get all the loans” from Japan, the processing of Japanese projects tends to be “slow”, and China’s rates are “still much better” than commercial loans. Most notably, he said we need “more friends”.

But is China really being friendly here? In this article we show that China’s new loans to the Philippines are more sinister and onerous than they appear.

In recent years, China – in a strategy now known as “debt-trap diplomacy” –has lent billions of dollars to many poor countries worldwide, ostensibly to help finance their infrastructure projects. 

But many of these countries, once unable to pay, are forced to give up their natural resources and strategic assets as a form of collateral. This, in turn, promotes China’s economic and political interests worldwide.

We should heed the experiences of these other borrower countries. Given the actions – rather, inaction – of our current leadership, the Philippines could well be the next victim of this devious scheme. 

Expensive loans

By the end of Duterte’s first visit to Beijing in 2016, Chinese officials pledged $6 billion in foreign aid and $3 billion in loans, ostensibly to help finance Duterte’s flagship infrastructure project called “Build, Build, Build”. This is the very first time China is offering us foreign aid. 

Until now, China has not lent us any money. But Duterte’s chief economist confirmed talks are underway, and China is offering loans with 2-3% interest. Japan, in contrast, is offering us loans with 0.25 to 0.75% interest.

In economics, the price of a loan is its interest rate. Thus, simple math tells us that China’s loans are at least 3 times more expensive than Japan’s, and at most 12 times more expensive!

Some say the Chinese loans are expensive because they lend to risky states with low investment grade (that is, a high probability of default). 

But the Philippines attained investment grade status back in 2013, and credit rating agencies have improved and reaffirmed it since. If we’re so creditworthy, why can’t they offer lower rates like Japan?

Aside from the exorbitant rates, China’s loans also require the direct participation of Chinese contractors (unlike Japan’s loans, wherein anyone can bid).

So far, 3 infra projects have been prioritized for Chinese loan funding, namely: the Chico River Pump Irrigation Project, the New Centennial Water Source-Kaliwa Dam Project, and the North-South Railway Project-South Line. 

Which Chinese companies will get which projects? Pernia said the Philippine government would “select” among 3 Chinese companies, and gave assurances that they would be screened thoroughly.

But this is fertile ground for collusion and corruption. As warned by Supreme Court Associate Justice Antonio Carpio, the Chinese firms can simply talk and assign among themselves who will get the irrigation project, the dam project, and the railway project. 

We also have a bad past in dealing with Chinese firms for infrastructure projects. During the Arroyo administration, the $329-million NBN-ZTE deal left such a massive trail of corruption that led all the way to the first couple and resulted in graft charges against then president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. 

The Northrail project was similarly botched due to bribery and overpricing charges. Had our obligation not been settled in 2017, we would have paid the Chinese contractor upwards of $100 million. 

In sum, China’s new loans are expensive, uncompetitive, and corruption-prone. 

Are Filipinos willing to pay such onerous loans, despite the availability of cheaper ones? Can the government assure that future dealings with Chinese firms will be devoid of scandal and corruption?

Debt-trap diplomacy

More importantly, the new loans offered by China must be understood in the context of China’s broader, long-term development strategy called the “Belt and Road Initiative” or BRI.

Under the BRI, China aims to build infrastructure projects – roads, bridges, ports, airports, pipelines, dams, railways, and telecommunications – across 68 countries in Asia-Pacific, Africa, Middle East, and Europe. (For an overview, see this graph prepared by Reuters.)

BRI projects are often offered as China’s way to help poor countries needing money to finance their own infrastructure and development projects.

From 2000 to 2015, for example, Chinese loans to poor Sub-Saharan African countries grew by a whopping 98 times, peaking in 2013 at $17 billion. Chinese banks also recently lent $1.2 billion to Pakistan, on top of a $57-billion pledge for the China-Pakistan Economic Corridor.

One expert said these large loans are “so big and appealing and revolutionary that many small countries find it difficult to resist.” Our very own finance department has endorsed BRI, saying it’s a chance to “open new markets for Philippine products” and fast-track the planned infrastructure “golden age.”

But in recent years, many poor countries have found themselves unable to pay these loans and, hence, are ensnared by China’s “debt trap”. As a form of payment, they are often left no choice but to give China unprecedented access to their natural resources or strategic assets – often at the cost of their own security and sovereignty. 

This strategy of China – known as “debt-trap diplomacy” – has victimized many poor countries in the past decade. China deepens its economic and political leverage worldwide as poor debtor countries suffer economic hardships. 

Examples abound:

• In February, China sent 11 warships in the East Indian Ocean as a constitutional crisis raged in the Maldives, which owes China at least $2 billion in loans. China and India are vying for influence over the island chain.
• Last December, Sri Lanka was forced to give China a 99-year lease on its strategic Hambantota port after failing to pay its debts. The port city of Mombasa in Kenya could suffer the same fate, after China funded a $3.8-billion railway there.
• In 2017, Djibouti allowed the construction of China’s first overseas military base, on top of paying China $20 million per year for its outstanding debt. 
• Venezuela, now in the midst of economic crisis, also borrowed $63 billion from China between 2007 and 2014, and China insisted that Venezuela repay it with oil. 
• Turkmenistan has also given China access to its natural gas supplies after encountering similar debt troubles. 

It seems, therefore, that part of China's debt-trap diplomacy is to use as collateral a poor debtor country’s natural resources and strategic assets. 

West Philippine Sea as collateral?

To anyone knowing China’s BRI and debt-trap diplomacy, President Rodrigo Duterte’s kowtowing to China looks deeply disturbing.

In particular, his soft stance in the West Philippine Sea (WPS) dispute can be read as his way of collateralizing our territories and resources there, in exchange for a few billion dollars worth of economic benefits from China.

Duterte has been openly indifferent about China’s intrusions in the WPS. Recently, he even joked about the possibility of the Philippines being a province of China. Spokesperson Harry Roque also said we might one day “thank” the Chinese for the islands they reclaimed.

Such acquiescence has real consequences. China is now fencing some of our most important resources in the WPS, including Reed Bank, which we direly need to supplant the fast-depleting gas reserves of Malampaya. 

If we cannot access Reed Bank in 8 to 10 years’ time, our energy supply in Luzon will be cut off, and we can expect rotating blackouts reminiscent of the 1990s. 

Obviously, Duterte’s dealings with China are far from fair exchange. As succinctly put by professor Jay Batongbacal, an expert on our maritime issues, “We are trading away too much, too early, and too soon in dealing with China.” 

Even supposing that an exchange is warranted, China is appropriating our territories even without any of its infrastructure projects breaking ground. It’s like a bank foreclosing your house even if it hasn’t given you any money yet.

A new form of colonialism? 

In economics, the cost of something is what you give up to get it. 

When it comes to China’s new loans, their cost comprises not just their high interest rates, but also the other things we seem to be giving up for them – including our territories, our natural resources, and our very own sovereignty. 

Government officials say we need these loans to make more friends. But what a costly friendship this is! 

Some actually call China’s debt-trap diplomacy a form of “neocolonialism” or “creditor imperialism.” 

Other countries, like the United States and the United Kingdom, are, of course, guilty of similar charges throughout history. But does this justify, in any way, China’s present militarization in the WPS and the inaction of the Duterte government?

Very soon, if Duterte continues to kowtow to China and hide from our people China’s ulterior motives, we might find ourselves waking up to our new Chinese overlords. 

Already, members of the Communist Party of China were invited as guests of honor in the PDP-Laban’s 36^th anniversary party last February 27. Chinese President Xi Jinping’s new book was also launched there.

We fear Duterte’s dictatorial tendencies, yet something more sinister could be at play: he and his party could be betraying our nation by selling out our national interests and resources – hook, line, and sinker. 

The natural next question is, what’s in it for them? – Rappler.com 

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

This year’s EDSA People Power anniversary was marked by widespread protests against President Rodrigo Duterte’s push for Charter Change. And with good reason.

Taken as a whole, the various proposals to revise or amend the 1987 Constitution are a stark reversal of whatever spirit of democratization, nationalism, and people empowerment there is in the EDSA-inspired Charter. 

If Duterte’s Cha-cha succeeds, it will lead to the greater disempowerment of ordinary Filipinos, especially the poor and marginalized sectors of society. 

An EDSA legacy

Post-upheaval constitutions usually reflect the aspirations of the victors. In the case of the 1987 Constitution, these included the aspirations of the pro-democracy and nationalist movements that fought the Marcos dictatorship.

Thus, the Constitution pays homage to People Power by declaring that sovereignty resides in the people, from which all government authority emanates. 

To prevent the rise of another dictatorship, the Constitution limits the president’s martial law powers and provides for the decentralization of power to the local governments. To democratize political power, it prohibits political dynasties as may be provided by law, and provides for a party list system for under-represented and marginalized constituencies. It allows for autonomous rule in the Cordillera and Muslim Mindanao regions. 

The Charter envisions a strong system of checks and balances. Not only are there 3 independent and co-equal branches of government but also independent commissions – the Commission on Elections, Commission on Audit, Civil Service Commission, plus the Commission on Human Rights. There is a separate constitutional body to prosecute erring government officials (the Tanodbayan), an independent anti-graft court (the Sandiganbayan), and a Presidential Commission on Good Government as mechanisms to dismantle and avoid the systemic corruption that developed under the Marcos regime. 

The Constitution has an extensive and detailed bill of rights covering civil and political rights. Aside from that, it has an entire article on social justice and human rights, with explicit provisions guaranteeing labor rights, agrarian reform, urban land reform and housing, the rights of women, the youth, indigenous peoples, the role of non-governmental organizations, and even the family as the basic social institution.

Lastly, the Constitution mandates the State to develop an independent, self-reliant economy effectively controlled by Filipinos. It sets industrialization and comprehensive rural development based on agrarian reform as the aim of the national economy. Toward these ends, it limits foreign ownership and gives preference to Filipino citizens and corporations in the use of land and natural resources, public utilities, strategic industries, schools, media and advertising, as well as the practice of professions. 

The 1987 Constitution’s bias for democratic governance, national sovereignty, people empowerment, social justice, and human rights gives it its unique character. But it is not a perfect document. I believe amendments or revisions can and should be done to further strengthen these core values. 

Sadly, such is not the case with Duterte’s Cha-cha.

There are 4 subcommittee reports now pending approval by the House committee on constitutional amendments. The reports are a consolidation of all pending bills in the House plus proposed amendments contained in the PDP-Laban’s proposal for Charter Change. These subcommittee reports provide the clearest picture yet of what Duterte’s federalist Cha-cha wants to achieve. And it doesn’t look good.

A smorgasbord for political dynasties

On the shift to federalism, the proposal is to create anywhere from 5 to 18 regional states, with provincial governors proposing 81. Each state will be headed by an elected Premier as the chief executive, and Regional Assembly as the legislative body. Each regional government will have its own bureaucracy in exercising a combination of exclusive and shared powers with the national government. 

With Congress refusing to pass any anti-dynasty measure in the last 30 years, it is a foregone conclusion that if and when Congress – as a constituent assembly – revises the Charter, it will allow the proposed regional states to be controlled by the very same political dynasties entrenched in Congress and now dominating 94% of the provincial governments. 

Knowing how local politics works, the regional premiership will most likely be a contest among provincial dynasts, with regional assembly candidates requiring the support of these same dynasts and warlords to win. 

Instead of bringing government closer to the people, Duterte’s federalist project will heap another layer of bureaucracy, and with it, another layer of red tape and an entirely new power structure controlled by the same old political dynasties and warlords. Maybe we would be better off improving and expanding the barangays. 

Given this, it is unlikely that the new regional governments will translate to more or better grassroots services, as they reinforce the current top-heavy governance structure. It will mean, however, more spoils to be divided among the political elite, more opportunities for graft and corruption, and more ways of cornering government resources for their friends, relatives, and supporters. 

Furthermore, running these new government structures will require additional funding to be shouldered by the country’s mostly poor population. The regional governments will, in fact, be authorized to impose its own taxes, on top of those already collected by the provincial, city, and municipal governments plus the barangay units. Whatever additional funds to be retained by regions due to federalism will most likely go to funding the new bureaucracy. 

By granting already dominant political elites more power, further bloating the bureaucracy and imposing additional taxes on the people, such a federal system reduces the capacity of poor and marginalized sectors to change existing power structures or influence public policy, leading to even greater alienation, oppression, and less democracy.  

A step towards dictatorship

During the 3-year transition period to the proposed parliamentary-federal system (2019-2022), Congress will be dissolved and a bicameral interim Parliament formed, to be composed (surprise!) of these very same characters from Congress. There will be a new Senate and a Federal Assembly from which will be elected the interim prime minister and the Cabinet.

During this time, President Duterte will be given the following additional powers: unprecedented oversight powers over all branches of government; the power to appoint his Cabinet members into the Federal Assembly; and the power of supervision and direction over the interim prime minister and the Cabinet.

It bears noting that there is even a proposal, contained in Resolution of Both Houses (RBH) No. 8, not only to dissolve Congress but to give Duterte himself legislative powers during the transition period, akin to Marcos’ act of closing down Congress in 1972 and abrogating upon himself legislative powers. (READ: Changing the Constitution: What is being proposed so far)

With respect to the judiciary, federalism would lead to a reorganization of the courts up to the regional Court of Appeals, with justices and judges in their new salas to be appointed by Duterte. But it’s not as if Duterte needs to do anything more to control the judiciary.

As to the independent constitutional commissions – the Commission on Elections, Commission on Audit and Civil Service Commission – plus the Commission on Human Rights, the subcommittee reports are silent but RBH No. 8 proposes ending the terms of the commissioners within a year after the approval of the new Charter. It also proposes  increasing the number of commissioners from 5 to 19 per commission and giving Duterte the power to appoint all of them.

At the very least, these proposed amendments grant immense powers to Duterte and effectively dismantle whatever system of checks and balances there is among the 3 branches of government and the constitutional commissions. At worst, it creates a constitutional dictatorship, much like that of the dictator Ferdinand Marcos. – Rappler.com

(To be concluded: Duterte’s Cha-cha to disempower Filipinos, especially the poor and marginalized)

Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno has never doubted she would be impeached. And neither has everyone else in a nation polarized between those who cheer her impeachment and those who protest it – between those blinded, charmed, or otherwise fooled by Rodrigo Duterte and those clear-eyed enough to see through him and his authoritarian designs. 

In fact, even before Sereno can be declared officially impeached, by a House of Representatives dominated by Duterte through its 90-percent-plus majority, her trial, by a Senate constituted as a court of law, has been more or less set – for July. 

She is a prime target, to be sure, but not an isolated one. A plot to hog power necessarily involves multiple targets and a large, collusive effort, and this one is driven by interlocking political interests – and vengeance, too. The first prime target was Senator Leila de Lima.

As chairperson of the Commission on Human Rights, De Lima had begun investigating Duterte when he was mayor of Davao City, for allegations that he presided over death-squad murders. And, when she became senator and he president, she pressed on. At one hearing she mounted, a confessed assassin for Duterte testified he had ordered her killed.

Duterte and his men came back at her by collecting convicts serving life terms for trafficking in illegal drugs and getting them to testify that she had been complicit with them. Solely on their word, without so much as a gram of illegal drugs or a cent of drug money for concrete evidence, she was detained to await trial on charges that, apparently to make them less incredible, were later changed – from the unprovable illegal drug trading to the still nebulous conspiracy to commit that crime. She has been in jail for over a year now.

Duterte was not the only one whose vengeful wrath De Lima provoked. There, too, was former president Gloria Arroyo. As secretary of justice to President Benigno Aquino III, successor to Arroyo, De Lima stopped her as she tried to flee the country and escape a charge of plunder, a crime for which no bail is allowed. In the campaign for the May 2016 elections, candidate Duterte called for Arroyo’s release from detention, and two months later, upon his accession to the presidency, she won both freedom and acquittal – thanks not only to a friendly president but also to a Supreme Court dominated by her own appointees. She is now deputy speaker and a principal Duterte ally. 

Aquino himself is being dragged to hearings for allegations of graft. It does not help that he was De Lima’s and Sereno’s nominator – and they his nominees – but the more likely intent is to discredit the benchmark his presidency set. He in fact left Duterte more than a trillion pesos in the treasury, but, with nothing to show for it, he has had to manufacture pretexts that would portray his predecessor as neglectful, corrupt, and inept.  

But the portrayal only makes a spectacular mockery of the facts: Aquino’s presidency posted the highest average growth rate, the sharpest decline in poverty incidence, and the highest sense of security against crime. But then, again, the confessed dictator and certified narcissist that he is, Duterte cares none about facts that don’t advance his wishes.

Strategically, Sereno herself doesn’t seem a worthy pick. Duterte obviously felt affronted when she held him off as he tried to cross into her domain and meddle with her judges, but impeachment does not seem a sanction proportionate at all to the affront, or to her potential as an obstructionist. 

As a minority chief justice going against a tide of voting that favored Duterte's interests, Sereno could have been left untouched safely. If the intention was to please the friendly magistrates by feeding their resentment toward a chief so young she frustrated their ambition to rise to her position, it might seem a worthwhile effort toward power consolidation. But, if the intention was for her to serve as a distraction while Duterte and his accomplices did whatever they felt they needed to do unobstructed to perpetuate themselves in power – constitutional change, federalization, plotting with China – they could be fatally mistaken. 

Sereno’s trial promises in fact to be the preoccupation, not the distraction. Impeachment, especially in the arbitrary way in which it was conducted, is nothing at all like a trial, and the Lower House, if only by tradition, is nothing like the Senate.

As chief impeacher, being chairman of the House committee on justice, Reynaldo Umali was the perfect Duterte flunky: He made sure not a word got in for Sereno; he did not even allow her lawyers to answer or question her detractors, who, precisely because they were indulged, went to town, and ended up sounding petty. The hearings were so one-sided they resembled an airing of gripes. 

The Senate does have its own stray flunkies but, since its members are installed on a national vote, thus less susceptible to the habits of patronage than the House, whose own members are voted by district, it has built a tradition of high-mindedness.

That's why Sereno can’t wait to go to trial. 

And that’s also why Umali, the designated chief prosecutor, is keen to dodge it. With false bravado, he advises Sereno to resign, or else face summary action declaring her unqualified to be chief justice.

As impressive as the ultimatum may sound – quo warranto in the books of law – it is cowardly, desperate, and ridiculous in its present application: after recognizing Sereno tacitly, by impeaching her, as the certified chief justice, his impeachers are now saying she was after all not qualified, from the very start, to be chief justice and, therefore, should never have been impeached. 

But shame being the last thing to stop the Duterte regime, its single-minded shameless intent is to send Sereno’s case to its co-opted Supreme Court, bypassing the Senate, robbing it of its exclusive constitutional mandate to decide impeachments.

That puts an even more fateful burden on the Senate than do all its great traditions put together: It is called upon to make a stand for truth, freedom, and justice, indeed for the nation’s redemption – a stand not improbably the last of such not only in its turn but in this generation and the next, perhaps for even longer.

The Senate cannot default. – Rappler.com

Thousands who escaped death from President Rodrigo Duterte’s anti-drug campaign considered themselves lucky until they were committed to detention centers. They never expected that the jails would be so unsanitary, congested, and unfit for humans. 

The condition of our jail system clearly violates the Philippine Constitution and the United Nations Standard Minimum Rules for the Treatment of Prisoners.  Without immediate solution to reduce overcrowding, a catastrophic incident can happen anytime that can cause the loss of lives.  

The human threshold for suffering has limitations and it may trigger unexpected action of prisoners to protest and call attention to their plight. The detainees face inhumane punishment even before they are convicted of a crime. 

“In the whole world, we have the highest congestion rate,” Bureau of Jail Management and Penology Director Serafin Barretto said in a recent media briefing. 

Philippine jails currently have a congestion rate of 558%, higher than that of Haiti.

The project started when I became a volunteer photographer for retired Supreme Court associate justice Roberto Abad to document overcrowding in Metro Manila jails.

My images became the visual foundation for the Supreme Court’s ongoing efforts to accelerate the resolution of cases and sentencing, with the hope that this would reduce the congestion in prisons.  

Ongoing changes are being instituted but not enough to make a dent in reducing the alarming congestion rate. 

Since 2011, I have been documenting several detention centers to establish that congestion is not an isolated case. 

As I have explained to all the detainees before taking their pictures: “If you allow me to photograph your situation, you will be helping yourselves. I will use the images of your condition to call attention to your plight. If changes happen when you are no longer incarcerated, those who will follow you will get the benefit of your cooperation. Those who do not like to be included please cover your face or stay out of the camera range.”

The wardens and staff of detention centers allowed me to chat and mingle with the detainees inside their cells and explain to them the purpose of my visits.  In some cases, I was left alone confident that my good deed and honest purpose would protect me from harm.

I would like to make it very clear, this project was undertaken not to find fault with any groups, political parties, and penology organizations. 

The problem of overcrowding has existed for decades. 

To solve the problem, it will require the collective work of all branches of the government, and the participation of local governments.

While stakeholders are fully aware of the problem, some have reservations to bring out the truth because of possible retribution from higher management.  I strongly believe that they are in dire need for solutions to make their job less stressful.   

A better infrastructure to alleviate overcrowding is beyond their capabilities to solve. The solution requires financial appropriation, structural improvement of facilities, and integration of various stakeholders into a single agency. 

There is a need to pass a law that would integrate the management of all jails under one agency to have a common standard of practice, professionalize penology management, and centralize accountability for failures and successes.

Streamlining the various agencies into a single operational body will standardize management guidelines and protocols.

We must commend efforts of everyone involved in the management of our detention centers. In spite of the obvious limitations, they have succeeded in preventing escapes, riots, and fire that could lead to death and injuries. 

Rehabilitation programs are sporadic because security is their primary responsibility. In some centers, security is compromised for lack of available wardens to do other task.  

Judges and lawyers play a role in the cancellation of hearings and the cancellations of scheduled hearings contribute to overcrowding because of the long wait to get another hearing date.

It is not unusual for a detainee to only have one or two hearings a year because of the backlog of cases handled by the courts. 

With the Public Attorney’s Office overburdened by cases, the defense of their clients is marginalized and sometimes preparation of cases happens minutes before the hearing starts.

In the Philippines, our justice system does not guarantee to exonerate the innocent and punish the guilty all the time. For poor Filipinos, justice is a rare privilege and they suffer the most.

Unfortunately, our rule of law favors those with power, privilege and with connections. 

I hope this project gives justice to those incarcerated and the warden’s difficult role as the protector of the detainee’s well being while in jail.  

I never expected that I would be advocating reforms designed to help detainees and their wardens responsible for their welfare. My 6 years of work on this project made me conclude that we cannot separate their needs because both are integral parts and complimentary to the overall solution.  

I sincerely hope that this body of work will engage everyone, civic leaders, lawyers and judges, elected and appointed government officials, wardens, police and military leadership, legislators of both Congress and the Senate, and advocates for Human Rights to join hands to find a solution. 

This is my clarion call to solve a problem that needs immediate attention.  – Rappler.com

Rick Rocamora is an award-winning documentary photograher. The photos in this article are part of his photo exhibit, "Bursting at the Seams: Philippine Detention Centers," at the second floor of the Ayala Museum from March 10 to April 6. 

There are two kinds of abuses of due process in a criminal suit – abuses which a professional prosecutorial service and judiciary are mandated to curb.

The first is when the process is used to harass a clearly innocent person, perhaps as a tool to extract compliance to impede him, or as vengeance. Many would characterize the Leila de Lima prosecution this way.

The other is when process is invoked to defeat the end of process, releasing those who clearly have to account for the charges against them. In our pevious article on Mary Jane Veloso, we stressed the truth-telling purpose of due process. In both these abuses, truth is clearly not served, when the proper voice is not being heard (either by implicating the wrong one or allowing the right one to disappear).

In Mario Joel T. Reyes v. Regional Trial Court of Puerto Princesa City and People of the Philippines, majority of the Court of Appeals (CA) former 11th Division's judges suddenly reversed the Regional Trial Court (RTC) Branch 52's probable cause finding against former Governor Joel Reyes in Dr Gerry Ortega's murder.

There is merit to the contention that it was a step back for justice: in a division of 5, 3 were for the majority, with the other two (Marie Christine Jacob and Filomena Singh) issuing strong dissents to the decision.

With such a close vote and with diametrically opposed opinions on the question of probable cause, a bump to the Supreme Court (SC) was expected. Given the stakes, however, it behooves the legal community to make clear what probable cause is, what it takes to bring a case to trial.

Again, a short recap: the captured triggerman Marlon Recamata confessed and implicated "Bumar" Edrad and two others. Edrad, in turn, claimed before the NBI that Reyes ordered the hit. Then Justice Secretary de Lima had to formulate two special investigative panels, the second of which issued the resolution charging him for the death of Ortega via conspiracy.

The first panel dismissed the complaint but De Lima overruled them and constituted the second panel.

That issue of the two panels was settled in another SC case (De Lima et al v. Reyes). In the meanwhile, Reyes filed a Rule 65 certiorari case for "grave abuse of discretion" against the named RTC for judicially finding probable cause against him in the second panel's information.

In layman's terms, that means that the judge assessed the second panel's report saying that (a) Ortega was murdered, and (b) based on the provided evidence, Reyes may have had a hand in it and that there was enough substance to have the case filed. As a result, the judge issued the warrant of arrest against Reyes.

The majority opinion and the dissents

That is what the CA overturned. The majority decision effectively said that the judge should not have done so, as the only evidence linking Reyes to the crime was Edrad's sworn statement implicating him (and nothing else, so the decision says).

The CA also said the witness' statements were inconsistent and contradictory, thus diminishing their credibility, and any other linkage raised elsewhere, such as Ortega's denunciation of corruption under Reyes' watch, were too circumstantial and equivocal to constitute a probable cause finding.

The two dissents emphasized that at this stage of a criminal proceeding, from the preliminary investigation conducted by a prosecutor (or panel as in Ortega's murder) to the judge's issuance of the arrest warrant, neither the investigating prosecutor nor the judge was called to weigh the accusations and the evidence before them as though he were deciding on the guilt of the accused party.

Azcarraga-Jacob cited Hao v. People, saying that "at this stage, the trial court judge is tasked to merely determine the probability, not the certainty, of guilt of the accused." Singh took the majority opinion to task, writing that "[t]he reasons cited…touched in plainly evidentiary matters which… are properly threshed out only during a trial and prematurely at this stage.” Both cited Santos-Dio v. Court of Appeals, in particular, defining the judge's duty at this stage of the proceedings:

… so as not to transgress the public prosecutor’s authority, it must be stressed that the judge’s dismissal of a case must be done only in clear-cut cases when the evidence on record plainly fails to establish probable cause – that is when the records readily show uncontroverted, and thus, established facts which unmistakably negate the existence of the elements of the crime charged. [But] if the evidence on record shows that, more likely than not, the crime charged has been committed and that respondent is probably guilty of the same, the judge should not dismiss the case...

On the question of probable cause

Probable cause establishes a good reason to bring an accused to trial, but not to reach at its result. As pointed out in Hao, this is not the determination of guilt. The judicial determination of probable cause (being attacked in Reyes v. RTC), on the other hand, determines "whether a warrant of arrest should be issued."

This differs from the beyond-reasonable-doubt standard of conviction in trial, precisely because of its preliminary nature. The only way to convict someone beyond reasonable doubt is to go through the process, but if that process can only push through with beyond-reasonable-doubt certainty even before filing the case, then the process may never even see the light of day.

It must be undeniable that either the respondent had not participated in the complained offenses, or had not acted in violation of law. Or even evidence that the charges were all cooked up. The magic words for these are "no evidence of probable cause," or more often "lack of probable cause." It has to be evidence clear as day, unrefuted by the complainant, unmistakably saying, "This man did nothing wrong."

Consider the implication thus offered by the majority decision: one was afforded an acquittal as though there were a full-blown trial, without a full-blown trial, and without conclusive findings. As in Veloso's case where the truth of the drugs in her bags is obscured by rules of procedure, here the truth of Ortega's death is obscured by misapprehensions of probable cause.

Repeatedly, the SC ruled that in the fires of trial the certainty of one's case is tested – the Court has said that only when the given evidence clearly shows no crime, or no commission by the accused, even without having to look deeply, that the trial becomes a futility.

When the evidence is controverted, when the respondent cannot irrefutably show he is not the one they seek, the bias is for process, truth-telling, and the fires of trial. – Rappler.com

To be concluded | Part 2: Distorting probable cause in Ortega case

Christian Laluna is a graduate of the Ateneo School of Law. He is awaiting the results of the bar examinations by collaborating with Professor La Viña in several projects.

READ: Part 1: [OPINION] Injustice in the Court of Appeals: The Ortega case

In the first part of this article on the Gerry Ortega decision, where a division of the Court of Appeals absolved former governor Joel Reyes of complicity in the murder of the environmental and anti-corruption crusader, we reflected on how the concept of probable cause, a good concept in a system characterized by due process, may have been distorted by the majority.

Admittedly and as with probable cause, "grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of jurisdiction" is a struggle to understand.

In the case of Reyes, the officer in question would be the judge – and by extension, the investigating prosecutors. The findings of the prosecutor post-investigation represent the State's first look at a criminal complaint.

Whether an offense is successfully resolved by trial depends on the professional performance of the Philippine prosecutorial corps from this very start. Along with them, the judges to whom the burden of judicial probable cause and final resolution rests, are bound by the same professionalism.

We are fully aware that some may fail this high standard, deliberately or with gross neglect. People are vulnerable to laziness, carelessness, even full-blown malice. Hence the Rule 65 "grave abuse of discretion" certiorari, was constitutionally elevated as a remedy against actions of government officials in any branch breaching law or legal standard.

Granted, a certiorari challenge is a higher bar to clear than a regular appeal; one does not allege here a mere error of judgment, but something worse.

It is even harder in challenging probable cause findings, as factual assessments of an officer trusted with discretion tend to be the central issue, errors in fact tend to be considered as mere errors of judgment, except when bias or inexcusable negligence is clearly involved. The SC also tends to respect preliminary investigation findings absent the clear showing we stressed above.

If and only if the standard of evidence for preliminary investigation should be the same scouring demanded during trial, then there would have been basis to overturn the probable cause finding for breach of legal standard.

But as the dissents have argued, and as other cases have shown, precisely because there is no cross-examination requirement yet during preliminary investigation, and no opportunity for scouring by the holy trinity of prosecutor, defense, and judge – all that is demanded for probable cause is a "reasonable ground to believe that the accused is guilty of the offense" (People v. Inting). The trial-level certainty requiring the technical application of the Rules of Court that the Decision implies is not necessary.

All that is left is the evidence as is, and the very findings of the majority militate in favor of probable cause. Equivocality and circumstantiality require holy-trinity scouring to reveal their true intent – it cannot be accomplished by an investigating prosecutor or arrest-warrant judge in a non-confrontational setting just sifting through the records.

The principle of in dubio pro reo (when it doubt, rule for the accused) works only at the trial stage, once the questions of law and fact are being scoured, once guilt is in question – and not before, when conviction is not yet being considered. That is the process lawyers are sworn to uphold.

It is true that, in criminal proceedings, as defense counsel, we are sworn to push hard, even painfully, in fighting for our client-accused. Every angle, every loophole, every chance we get. That is the essence of the trial holy trinity: the State prosecutes, defense counsel counters, the judge rules, then we hope that truth and justice reign "though the heavens may fall."

But as with Veloso, in this dynamic, due process cannot be held hostage – neither by the accused nor the State.

Putting probable cause on trial

The majority decision describes its disposition of the case as a "second chance afforded… by God, or a lucky 3-point play."

Given how trite it sounds, even from a dispassionate professional perspective, it still feels more like Pilate washing his hands off the matter. And we know how that turned out. Too much pain has been borne in the probable cause debate, in either direction, that probable cause cannot be dismissed just as tritely.

When this case reaches the SC, we can only pray that the Justices see what is at stake here – how it may inform preliminary investigations and arrest warrant issuances. There is the chance, as we have seen in the review above, how too much may be demanded from probable cause such that due process in a case is strangled in the womb, and the clearly innocent are thrown under the bus.

We hope that the clear standard set forth in Santos-Dio is upheld, that in preliminary investigations, only clear, uncontroverted evidence showing lack of probable cause renders trial a futility.

We pray that the Court takes the opportunity to remind prosecutors and judges of the high trust placed on them in probable cause determinations, and consequently the degree of professionalism expected from them. We pray that they are able to show it always in their product when it is challenged in appellate courts.

We hope that the legal profession does not treat Rule 65 certiorari lightly, like some sort of magic wand that waves prosecutions away, but instead bears in mind the implications of what it asks for.

And we definitely pray that the question of Ortega's death is answered once and for all, to avoid the pain we saw in the Vizconde case. Given all the doubts left behind by Reyes v. RTC, only the scouring of trial and safeguarding of due process can put them to rest. – Rappler.com

Christian Laluna is a graduate of the Ateneo School of Law. He is waiting for the results of the bar examinations by collaborating with Professor La Viña in several projects.

No administration is immune from student protests. Every now and then, our news feeds are filled with images of students from Santa Mesa burning chairs to protest tuition hikes, activists from Diliman burning effigies and protesters from the university belt resisting the burial of a dictator in the Heroes Cemetery.

About a week ago, we were reminded once again of the importance of student-led protests. The People Power Revolution, one could argue, is the culmination of decades-long organizing that happened in campuses. And what better way to honor the legacy of EDSA than for today’s youth to mobilize and express dissent against a state that increasingly features authoritarian qualities.

Unwelcoming reactions

But this right does not impress a lot people.

On social media, protesters have been described as "gago", "bobo", and "salot sa lipunan". I have had conversations with friends, students and family members who dismiss them as nuisance.

Protesters from state universities are singled out as "walang utang na loob". To complain about the state while receiving state subsidy is to be an ingrate. The nation is better served, the argument goes, when students stay out of politics, and instead, stay in the classroom.

I find these arguments problematic.

Freedom is not a birthright

I spent most of my student life in public schools. I spent my elementary and secondary days in Sapad, a rural town in the province of Lanao del Norte. I had the privilege of completing my bachelor’s and master’s degree in sociology at the Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology (MSU-IIT). I teach in the same university today.

The main lesson I learned from studying and working in public schools is that the freedom we enjoy today is not a birthright. We enjoy our liberties today because there were protesters who cared enough to secure a future of freedom.

I learned this lesson from one of my mentors in Sociology, Professor LC Sevidal Castro, now the alumni regent of the MSU. In the 1970s, she and her colleagues organized a faculty association at a time when employees faced a lot of pressure from the university administration. I learned from her the significance of collective action for the common good.

I learned the value of community engagement from my master’s thesis supervisor, Professor Maria Cecilia Ferolin. She challenged me not only to study but to engage disaster-affected communities.

In 2016, we organized a youth-led disaster management team in partnership with local government units. Together with MSU-IIT’s sociology students, we collaborated with local residents in creating practical solutions to disaster-related problems. This experience made me realize that professors, students and the vulnerable people all belong to the same community.

Finally, my first teacher in sociology, Professor Nimfa Bracamonte taught me that professional knowledge is meaningless if we don’t use it to fight inequality and injustice. Her radical social practice is inspiring.

She organized Badjaus in Iligan City to earn a living and get security of tenure. I witnessed how she passionately made a case in front of city councilors for Badjaos to have access to literacy and livelihood programs. I observed how she organized and built networks from religious, academic, and business sectors. Her message was simple. People in power should give voice to the powerless.

All my role models taught me that staying inside the classroom betrays our commitment to the nation.

Dissent in the South

These role models matter to me now more than ever. We from Mindanao are often stereotyped as being unrelenting Duterte supporters. Duterte may be popular here, but this does not mean Mindanao has no reason to take part in politics.

Mindanaons continue to be at the forefront of demanding reforms in the rehabilitation of Marawi, militarization of Lumad communities, and the stalled Bangsamoro Basic Law.

We continue to fight today in the same way our mentors fought for our future before. Protests are reminder that we can do better.

As a government employee, I am aware of the benefits I receive from the state. As a sociologist, I am aware that the benefits I receive from the state are outcomes of people’s struggles.

University life is most meaningful not because of theory but because of praxis – the art imagining what’s possible and the will to act to achieve our collective aims. – Rappler.com

Septrin John (Badz) Calamba is sociologist. He is an Assistant Professor at the Mindanao State University-Iligan Institute of Technology and is the coordinator of the Centre for Local Governance Studies. He is the secretary of the Philippine Sociological Society.

A huge tragedy.

The public spectacle at the Supreme Court has never been seen in recent memory: justices shamelessly against the chief justice, justices blatantly criticizing each other, internal turmoil as vicious as can be among men and women supposedly cloaked with the dignity of the High Court.

House justice committee members have stoked the fire, providing a ready platform for the open display of internal strife at the Supreme Court and laying the predicate for impeachment of the chief justice.

The last hearing of the justice committee last week featured an outrageous testimony by a clinical psychologist summoned as “expert witness”. The findings of the clinical psychologist were based on a 2012 psychiatric report on Chief Justice Maria Lourdes Sereno and the psychologist’s own observations during the committee hearings – without actual interaction with Sereno herself.

She concluded that Sereno was psychologically “unfit” for the post of chief justice. To those who don't know any better, it's very damaging testimony. The Psychological Association of the Philippines was, however, quick to say this was misleading and possibly even unethical.

There is no doubt the High Court’s leadership has been weakened considerably. The Supreme Court as co-equal branch of the executive and the legislative has been undermined at a crucial time when other democratic and independent institutions are also being threatened, if not subverted.

 

Justices sympathetic to the Chief Justice may have found themselves faced with a conundrum when insiders made an issue of the persistent questions about Sereno’s filing of her Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALNs). They knew that her failure to give satisfactory answers to these questions would serve to further debilitate an already divided Court.

Sereno has insisted she would defend herself only at the appropriate venue – the Senate sitting as an impeachment court.  

They also made an issue of her supposed deception over her “indefinite leave” termed by her spokespersons as a “wellness leave”. The quarrel over terminology was clearly caused by implications of going on an indefinite leave: it could be interpreted as being tantamount to an inevitable, eventual resignation – something that the Sereno camp strongly objects to because it has no legal basis.

This is why Sereno had to be categorical in saying there will be no resignation that will be forthcoming from her: “I will not resign. No I will not. I will give an account of my actions as the Chief Justice to the people. I owe the people to tell my story. I am hopeful that after the impeachment trial, days of renewal for the Supreme Court can still be forged, united by the common desire to serve the people and protect the constitutional rights especially in these troubled times,” she declared.

The en banc has insisted that what had been agreed upon was an indefinite leave that would last till the end of the impeachment process. Yet Sereno indicated in her notice to the en banc that her leave would only be until her preparations for the Senate trial are completed.

The debacle at the Supreme Court is obviously also a question of leadership. Can a chief justice who is being challenged as a leader by her peers still be effective? How far can she go in safeguarding the independence of the institution she heads when her standing among her colleagues is under doubt? Did she do enough to build and strengthen internal alliances and strive to be an inclusive leader, knowing full well that higher stakes are involved?

The bigger picture cannot be ignored: a fragmented Court caught in the middle of eroded democratic freedoms and a steep descent toward authoritarianism is inutile as a check against extra-constitutional acts.

Court insiders ask if they are better off with a weakened Sereno at the helm or someone else who cannot promise judicial independence.

What a tragic dilemma not only for the justices, but for all of us a well. – Rappler.com

I'm a new mom. To say that the first year of motherhood was difficult is an understatement.

Four months after I moved to Japan, I found out I was pregnant. Child-bearing and -rearing seemed like a burden when coupled with adjusting to a new country, learning a new language, and juggling two jobs. But like any other overseas Filipino worker, there was no other choice but to persist.

They always told me the first month was the hardest. I thought it was some parental cliché that seasoned parents say to newbies to make it seem like babies are a handful. I was convinced we were going to be the exception. We weren't, however, and the first 30 days were full of tears, blood, pain, and sweat.

On the second month, I suffered postpartum depression (PPD). PPD is not just about random feelings of maternal blues or a profound, quiet yearning for your old self. It is heavier, darker.

I fantasied about falling 7 floors down with blood gushing and my insides splattered on the pavement. I was gripped with fear, and it prevented me from bonding with my baby. I didn't feel any connection. Instead I complained how this tiny human can be so demanding and needy. But almost immediately guilt would set in and send me to raging tears. For months, the idea of taking care of my baby – while working full time and managing all domestic tasks – was enough to put me on the edge. I was extremely unhappy and tired. 

At the end of every day, I felt like there wasn't enough of me to give anymore. I worked too many hours, changed too many diapers, and cleaned too many corners. On most days, it was a constant rotation of moods from irritation to tenderness, desire to boredom, and indifference to ecstasy. 

I had no support system and even my husband could not comprehend the gravity of PPD. To him, it was something that can be remedied by going to the park or by buying me new brassieres. When the one person whom I expected to understand failed to, it was a strange sense of aloneness, so I built an impenetrable shell of emotional seclusion.

Boiling point

I didn't tell anyone else about my depression. I hid its existence. I didn't even want to say it out loud anymore, for fear that a mere admission would make me look incapable as a mother and wife. I bottled it up because I knew it was not what was expected of me. People didn't want to hear about how lonely it can be to care for your baby all alone, or how tiring it was to exclusively breastfeed while trying to meet your work deadline. They wanted to listen about the saccharine tales of parenthood. They liked to hear tiny baby snores and see knee dimples. 

So I played the part. I sent them the most flattering images, prepackaged these with filters, and exclaimed my love with poetic musings of a brand new mother. Social media does just that, and we often become so engrossed with this voyeuristic addiction that we forget that these photos are not exactly a precise representation of what is true. Lying was easy. It was my reality that was hard to escape.

No matter how I tried to conceal my depression, there was a boiling point on my proverbial cup that came spilling out. I unraveled and broke down. I have a lasting memory of hitting my husband. He hit me back and I pulled a knife at him. I can never forget his look of disgust and fear. It sent me reeling back.

Overwhelming emotions

Postpartum depression turns you into a monster. The overwhelming emotions eat you away until you are unrecognizable even to your own self. It feels like being stuck in an endless labyrinthine of pain, contempt, weariness, and self-pity but with no exit.

It wasn't just me that was suffering because I hid in this veil of contentment. In a way, we all suffered because I wasn't being truly honest with what I felt. For me, truth was subjective, and I woke up to which version of it I was comfortable with. I told myself these narratives because it was convenient but it was also mentally damaging.

Our capacity to be resilient is not taught but usually it is instinctive. I knew I had to force my way out of the deep hole of paranoia and depression. What helped me most in powering through PPD was telling people about it. The candor of my confessions wasn't always taken well by others.

I remember voicing my frustrations and feelings of being overwhelmed about becoming a new mother, and being met with blank stares. I was censored and chided. My mother-in-law even questioned my ability as a mother simply because I asked for a day off. I was told that this should be the happiest time of my life and that I should never complain or ask to be separated from my baby. In being truthful, I was called names. I was personally attacked. I, a first-time mother, was compared to a seasoned nurturer of 4 kids.

I think what stuck the most was when I told I was selfish when I took a vacation. Kala was 10 months old. She won't remember the week I took off but what she will always remember is the tone of my voice when I'm extremely stressed toward her.

It is easy for motherhood to evoke such public scrutiny from people who feel overqualified to give advice. They are those who observe only from the outside but are armed with their justifications based on their own perceived expertise and moral high ground.

But I don't see the need to bear everything silently.

Take care of yourself

Motherhood is the most terrible and most wonderful experience. It can be exhilarating and delightful, and it can also be boring and draining depending on the moment. Being a mother is hard, and there are days when I just don't want to do it anymore, but it doesn't mean I love my daughter any less. Sometimes, I just feel like a butter spread over too much bread. Every night, I just want to cleave quietly into myself rather than have more of myself further dispersed across yet more demands. Reacquainting myself with my own thoughts is crucial so I can begin to take the pleasure of gifting myself to another. 

When I became a mother, I wasn't given the chance to be vulnerable. All of a sudden, I had to be this grown-up who had to take care of both my husband and my baby. They say that to be a mother is to be selfless but that's not what motherhood is only about. It is more than just what you do for your child, it is also what you do for yourself.

It's okay to say you are a mess or that you need help or that half of the time you don't know what you are doing. If only more people are willing to talk about it all, women wouldn't feel so guilty for the mixed bag of emotions.

As mothers, we halt our lives to raise a family and all together relinquish everything. I understand how it can be easy for us to lose ourselves in our children. For the first year, I was devoid of myself – I felt like my daughter and I were one and the same. Motherhood required me to be completely dissolved into a task that demanded my attention every minute, every day. But bit by bit, it is important to try to get myself back again.

We are expected to always put our children first before us. We should – but never to the point that we are remiss with ourselves. It takes more than just perseverance, common sense, and hard work to be a parent. It will, more than anything, require you to be sane. The fundamental rule in taking care of another person is to also take care of yourself. It is not selfish, it is necessary. Your personal needs are also equal to the needs of your children. We also matter, and no one will benefit simply by putting ourselves last on our priority list. There should be a vague border between absolute love and sacrificial love that all parents should not cross – for our own sake and for the happiness of our children. I do not have to leave my own personality, dreams, and goals in the delivery room. 

Like children, mothers also have their own road to journey on. We can only ask for guidance but no one can walk the path for us. At the end of the day, mothers are not just mothers; we are also a wife or a girlfriend, a daughter, a sister, a friend, and our own person.

Depression should be talked about more often and not just quietly discussed among friends and family. Telling our own stories is a compassionate act toward those who feel they are carrying their depression alone. 

We don't live once, we live every day. There's no need to spend the rest of our days suffering simply because we are afraid of being shamed and ridiculed. 

Let us nestle with our demons tonight, but unburden our heavy hearts tomorrow by getting help. – Rappler.com

Demsen Gomez Largo, 27, is a full-time mother to daughter Kalayaan.

READ: Part 1: Duterte's Cha-Cha reverses gains of EDSA

The 1987 Constitution is often hailed as a document against dictatorship. But more than that, it also reflects our people’s struggle for national sovereignty, social justice and human rights that were part of the anti-Marcos dictatorship movement.

Some have argued that the Constitution does not go far enough to ensure that these aspirations become a reality. For example, the provision prohibiting political dynasties has been ignored with impunity by Congress that was tasked to pass its enabling law. Likewise, the provisions on agrarian reform did not provide for free land distribution to farmer tillers, leaving millions of farmer beneficiaries in perpetual debt. 

But under Duterte’s Cha-Cha, even the most token provisions on sovereignty, social justice and human rights are in danger of being deleted or severely watered down. While this will have an effect on all Filipinos, ultimately it will be the country’s poor and marginalized sectors that will suffer the most.

Attack on the rights of basic sectors

Among the most dangerous amendments adopted by the House subcommittee reports are the proposals of the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF), a rabidly neoliberal, pro-business group, to delete the entire Article XIII on Social Justice and Human Rights and relegate it’s drastically watered down provisions to other sections of the Charter.

In particular, the proposals are to delete:

• the provision on full employment and equal employment opportunities, including constitutional guarantees of well-established workers rights such as the right to security of tenure, humane conditions of work, a living wage, participation in policy and decision making, and to a just share in the fruits of production (Art. XIII, Sec. 3)
• the term “agrarian reform program” as well as the farmers’ right to own the land they till or to share in the just fruits of the land (Art. XIII, Sec. 4)
• provisions on support to farmers and subsistence fishermen, as well as incentives to landowners to invest in industry and job creation (Art. XIII, Sec. 5 and 8)
• the term “urban land reform” and the right of the homeless and poor to a comprehensive housing program, including the constitutional requirement that evictions of informal settlers be done in a “just and human manner (Art. XIII, Sec. 9 and 10)”
• the provision allowing Congress to apply customary laws in determining the ownership and extent of ancestral domain of our indigenous peoples and national minorities (Art. XII, Sec. 5)

The effect of these deletions and diluted provisions is to deny our most marginalized and oppressed sectors – the workers, farmers, urban poor and indigenous peoples – any constitutional basis for asserting their hard-won rights. 

Such changes will most likely result in the striking down of current laws on labor, agrarian reform, urban housing and ancestral domain, and the enactment of new laws that violate such well-established rights.

Limited rights and freedoms

But the attack is not only on the economic rights of the marginalized sectors. Also apparent is the attempt to limit the political and civil rights of citizens.

Article II, Section 1 on the people’s sovereign will is to be amended limiting the expression of that sovereign power to that of suffrage. This effectively makes the country’s flawed electoral system the only constitutionally recognized mechanism for the people’s will, excluding other mechanisms like public opinion, mass protests and other concerted actions, and social and political movements like that which gave birth to the Constitution itself: People Power.

The Bill of Rights (Article III) is to be amended limiting the freedom of speech, of expression and of the press, as well as the right to peacefully assemble and seek redress of grievance from government, to their “responsible exercise”. This gives those in power the ability to suppress such rights on the ground that those exercising it – whether members of media, critics, activists or ordinary citizens – are doing so in an “irresponsible” manner. 

On the Judiciary (Article VIII, Sec. 1), the power of judicial review will be clipped by removing the Court’s power to determine whether there is grave abuse of discretion on the part of any branch or instrumentality of government. This amendment seeks to deny ordinary citizens a most useful weapon for fighting corruption and abuse of power in government. 

In a country where formal democratic institutions and processes are often dysfunctional or controlled by vested interests, ordinary citizens often have to resort to taking to the courts, the media (including social media), or directly to the communities and streets to assert their interests, air their grievances or seek accountability. By effectively constricting such mechanisms, Duterte’s Cha-Cha will lead to the further disempowerment of our people, especially those with little connections to those in power.   

Making Filipinos marginalized in their own country

The amendments to the Constitution’s economic provisions seek to remove limits on foreign ownership and participation, remove the preference for Filipino citizens and corporations, and grant the Federal Assembly unhindered authority to determine economic policy.

Among the most glaring amendments are those that:

• delete the State’s mandate to develop a self-reliant and independent economy effectively controlled by Filipinos (Art. II, Sec. 19)
• delete comprehensive rural development and agrarian reform as a basic principle of the State (Art. II, Sec. 21)
• delete industrialization and full employment based on sound agricultural development and agrarian reform as an economic goal (Art. XII, Sec. 1)
• delete the State’s mandate to protect Filipino enterprises from unfair foreign competition and trade practices (Art. XII, Sec. 1)
• remove limits on foreign exploitation, development and use of natural resources (Art. XII, Sec. 2), ownership of land (Art. XII, Sec. 3), ownership of public utilities (Art. II, Sec. 11), practice of professions (Art. XII, Sec. 14), ownership of schools (Art. XIV, Sec. Sec. 4), and ownership of mass media and advertising firms (Art. XVI, Sec. 11)
• delete exclusive use by Filipinos of the nation’s marine wealth, including its exclusive economic zone (Art. XII, Sec. 2)
• delete Congress’ mandate to reserve certain areas of investment to Filipinos, enact laws encouraging Filipino enterprises, and give preference to qualified Filipinos in the grant economic rights, privileges and concessions (Art. XII, Sec. 10)

Without definite limits on foreign ownership and with no preference for Filipino citizens and corporations, the Constitutional provisions on the national economy and patrimony would become a tabula rasa. It would now be up to the Federal Assembly to determine policies on foreign equity sharing and just about anything there is about the economy and our natural resources. This, of course, creates an entirely new window for corporate lobbying, putting small, underfunded Filipino citizens and corporations at a great disadvantage.

Worse, by totally removing the State’s role in developing an industrialized, self-reliant economy, in implementing agrarian reform, in promoting and protecting Filipino enterprises and producers, and in reserving our natural resources for Filipinos, Duterte’s Cha-Cha will leave small enterprises, workers and farmers having to fend for themselves from the onslaught of even more globalization.    

These amendments are the culmination of 3 decades of “economic reforms” toward a totally free market, neoliberal economy. Combined with the existing policies of economic liberalization, deregulation and privatization, the amendments remove the last impediments to the total domination, control and plunder of our economy and natural resources by foreign corporations and banks. 

A charter for dictators, oligarchs and imperial masters

While packaged as a shift to federalism, Duterte’s Cha-cha is, in fact, an insidious ploy to delete or water down whatever progressive provisions there are in the Constitution, affecting the whole range of our political, economic, and cultural systems.

In the guise of decentralizing power and wealth from Metro Manila to the regions, Cha-Cha will in fact create a new dictatorship even as it strengthens and expands the political dynasties’ monopoly on power. 

It will give a license to foreign powers and their corporations to dominate and control our economy and plunder our resources, at the expense of our citizens and communities.

It will disempower our people, especially the poor and marginalized, by denying them a weapon in their struggle for democratic governance, social justice, and human rights. – Rappler.com

On November 2, 2017, the World Economic Forum (WEF) released its Global Gender Gap Report for 2017. It is unfortunate that the Philippines slipped by 3 spots from number 7 to number 10, primarily due to its worsening performance on wage equality for similar work indicator, which dropped from 7^th to 21^st.

Despite the fall, the Philippines remains by far the most gender-equal country in Asia and 10^th in the world out of the 144 countries surveyed. In terms of political empowerment, one of WEF’s 4 subindices, the Philippines was ranked 13^th in the world and 2^nd in Asia, beaten only by Bangladesh which ranked 7^th. 

How did we get there?

Our first experience of elections, in its modern democratic sense, did not come until the Americans took over and colonized the country in 1898. While sporadic local and village elections happened all over the country between 1898 and 1906, our first formal election was held on July 30, 1907, called to fill the 80 seats in the newly-established Philippine Assembly. The Philippine Assembly was the lower house of the bicameral Philippine legislature, the precursor of the current House of Representatives. The Philippine Commission served as the upper house.

In preparation for that election, Act Number 1582, the country’s first election law, was enacted by the Philippine Commission in 1907. Now this is the interesting part: Section 13 set the qualifications of voters, thus:

Qualifications of voters. – Every male person 23 years of age or over who has had a legal residence for a period of 6 months immediately preceding the election in the municipality in which the exercise the suffrage, and who is not a citizen or subject of any foreign power, and who is comprised within one of the following three classes – 

(a) Those who prior to the 13th of August, 1898, held the office of municipal captain, gobernadorcillo, alcalde, lieutenant, cabeza de barangay, or member of any ayuntamiento;

(b)  Those who own real property to the value of 500 pesos, or who annually pay 30 pesos or more of the established taxes;

(c)  Those who speak, read, and write English or Spanish – shall be entitled to vote at all elections.

First, it must be noted that, to qualify, one must belong to one of the 3 classes specified, but first and foremost, one has to have a penis. Back in those days, the right to suffrage was limited to men. It was then the prevailing norm that a woman was a mere extension of her father or her husband. In the early 1900s, only 3 countries had allowed women to vote: the first was New Zealand in 1893, followed by Australia in 1902 and Finland in 1906.

Apart from being sexist, Act Number 1582 set power, property, and literacy requirements as conditions for suffrage – an imposition which will never pass any modern electoral standards. For example, it requires one to speak, read, and write a foreign language, either English or Spanish, excluding local languages like Tagalog. In comparison, the 1987 Constitution, in Article V, Section 1, bans these discriminatory pre-conditions, providing that “no literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.”

Act Number 1582 surely disqualified a lot of Filipinos from voting since its 3 requirements often cam in a bundle. To speak, read, and write English or Spanish would mean one had to be formally educated; to have education, one needed to have money; to have money, one had to own lands; and land ownership was often a consequence of power.

Despite these very stringent voting qualifications, 104,966 males were able to register for the July 30, 1907, elections and 98% of them actually voted. 

On February 8, 1935, the Philippines adopted a new constitution. It was later approved in a constitutional referendum held on May 14, 1935. The 1935 Constitution was very significant because it established the self-governing Commonwealth of the Philippines, replacing the Insular Government, which was the United States’ colonial government in the Philippines. The Commonwealth Government mirrored the American structure of government and it became the springboard for the country’s eventual independence in 1945.

Going back to voting, the qualifications were significantly relaxed under the 1935 Constitution. Article V, Section 1, provided:

Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by male citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are 21 years of age or over and are able to read and write, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for 1 year and in the municipality wherein they propose to vote for at least 6 months preceding the election.

This time, the voting age was lowered to 21 from 23 years. The literacy requirement was relaxed to just include ability to read and write, not necessarily in English or Spanish, and no need to speak them either.

Unfortunately, the 1935 Constitution still excluded women from suffrage. However, while it did not open the door for women’s suffrage, it opened a window. Article V, Section 1, qualified and provided that:

The National Assembly shall extend the right of suffrage to women, if in a plebiscite which shall be held for that purpose within 2 years after the adoption of this Constitution, not less than 300,000 women possessing the necessary qualifications shall vote affirmatively on the question.

In response, women’s groups launched a massive campaign through radio, newspapers, flyers, posters, house-to-house visits, and lectures, informing women about the plebiscite. Women helped each other by providing free transportation, food, and baby-sitting services on plebiscite day to make voting less difficult and financially burdensome, especially to the poor. 

On the day of the plebiscite, April 30, 1937, a total of 492,032 women showed up and voted for the first time in polling centers. Ninety percent (90%) or 447,725 of them voted in favor of suffrage, while 44,307 women ironically voted that they should not be allowed to vote. With that, the Philippines became the 4th country in Asia to have allowed women to vote: the first one was Sri Lanka in 1931, Thailand in 1932, and Myanmar in 1935.

Since women were allowed to vote in 1937, the political landscape in the Philippines has dramatically changed. During the 2016 national and local Elections, the Commission on Elections (Comelec) reported that 51.6% of the registered voters in the Philippines are now women, outnumbering the men, which accounts for only 48.4%. In terms of election participation, 82.68% of those registered women voters actually voted, while only 78.68% of the registered male voters went out to vote.

The overall picture, however, is not totally rosy. In a report by lawyer Damcelle Torre Cortes, gender and development consultant of the Comelec, she noted that while women are more politically participative than men, they appear to take a more passive role in electoral affairs. In other words, while women are more interested in voting, very few are interested in running for public office. 

During the 2016 national and local elections, for example, Comelec data revealed that 80.62% of the candidates were men and only 19.36% were women. Of that 19.36% representing 8,666 women candidates, only 18.18% were successful. 

In the House of Representatives, only 29% are women (85 out of 292), while in the Senate, 25% are women (6 of 24).

At the barangay level, out of the 94,834 candidates for barangay captain, only 16.76% were women. Of that 16.76% who ran, only 18.47% were successful.

In other words, already very few women run for elective positions, and it would appear it is even harder for them to win elections.

As to the reasons, a study by Comelec involving 501 “politically-active” respondents (mostly candidates, party members, and campaign supporters) revealed that while they collectively agree that females are “competent”or qualified to run for public office, there is less acceptance of the idea of them actually running for a public office. Their top reasons are the usual stereotypes: that women “do not have the necessary confidence, skills, leadership experience and interest in political office.”

In addition, Filipinos are still trapped in that mentality of compartmentalized gender roles: that women are, at the end of the day, in charge of homemaking and of rearing children; that the woman’s domain is inside the home. Going beyond it and assuming a bigger role in the community is seen as a diminution or even abandonment of her primary role as wife or mother.  

While the Philippines is considerably better than the rest of the world in terms of percentage of women in goverment, it is obvious that achieving the ideal 1:1 ratio of male-female elected officials has still a very long way to go. Until that day happens, women remain severely underrepresented in the political sphere, where decision making – even on matters intimately affecting women – remains in the hands of men. There is absolutely so much that needs to be done. 

Happy International Women's Day to all! – Rappler.com 

Emil Marañon III is an election lawyer who served as chief of staff of retired Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes Jr. He graduated from the SOAS, University of London, where he studied Human Rights, Conflict and Justice as a Chevening scholar. 

MANILA, Philippines - History professor Leloy Claudio gives 4 reasons why high school seniors should seriously consider taking up a course in the liberal arts.

In the process, he tackles issues such as automation in the workforce, vocational vs philosophical, and as always, the meaning of life – especially university life.

Are you bound to starve if you take up a course in history, social science or anthropology? Will these courses really do little to prepare you for real life? – 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
• Debunking myths on the origins of the Filipino

Marilou, Analou. Marju, Susan, Gina. Dita, Lina.  Evelyn, Mary Jean.

These names may not ring a bell as much as “si Aida o si Lorna o si Fe” for OPM fans of a certain age.

To many fishers in different parts of the country, however, these 9 names represent some of the bold women who use their assets – knowledge, skills, resourcefulness – to make sure there will always be food on their families’ tables. (READ: Women, the sea, and food security) 

Individual stories

Marilou Tria of Lubang in Occidental Mindoro and Analou Lumapguid of Ayoke in Cantilan, Surigao del Sur, are village leaders who have organized their neighbors, relatives, and friends into savings clubs.

In their remote island communities, these local organizations have provided a lifeline and raised thousands of pesos for family expenses, emergencies, and micro investments. (READ: The women of Baruya: Invisible food producers) 

Marjurie Abella, the municipal agricultural officer of Ayungon, Negros Oriental; and Susan Cataylo, the municipal disaster risk reduction and management officer of Pilar in the Camotes Islands in Cebu, have been initiating campaigns geared at empowering fishers in their community. 

Born on the same day, although decades apart, they run behavior change campaigns that inspire fishers to use registered gear and boats in designated fishing grounds outside marine protected areas. As department heads, they are always busy coordinating with local and national officials, fisheries leaders, and project partners.

They have also delivered speeches before international audiences about their experiences in mobilizing and climate-proofing communities, and still find time – as devoted mothers – to attend to their families’ needs.

Gina Barquilla, who serves as the municipal environment and natural resources officer of Del Carmen in Siargao Island, Surigao del Norte, leads a team comprised mostly of men.

Gina has been apprehending illegal fishers despite threats to her life. In 2016, the Department of Environment and Natural Resources in the Caraga region recognized her dedicated service which she accomplished while dealing with the challenges of being a single parent to 5 children.

Meanwhile, Catalina "Lina" Cabrera and Expedita "Dita" Acibo chair the Fisheries and Aquatic Resources Management Councils in the municipalities of Manjuyod and Bindoy in Negros Oriental.

These local bodies provide critical inputs to fisheries legislation, managing marine sanctuaries, rights and duties of fishers, and conservation measures. The leadership of these women have won recognition – Lina was a finalist in the Ocean Heroes Awards for Tañon Strait in 2017 while Dita steered her group to become the national winner for outstanding MFARMC in 2015.

Mayor Evelyn Fuentebella of Sagnay, Camarines Sur, and Mayor Mary Jean Te of Libertad, Antique, are two local officials who do not allow the remoteness or income class of their municipalities to hinder them from pursuing what they believe is beneficial for their constituents. Executive support comes in the form of budget allocation for fisheries management, staff development, and personally rallying residents to safeguard their marine resources. After all, healthier ecosystems mean more and bigger fish, a better quality of life for families, and more economically vibrant communities.

Gender equality

Their stories of meaningful participation in developing the fisheries sector affirm the need for gender equality. Traditionally, women have been relegated to lower levels of the value chain as vendors and fish processors, while men occupy the first level as fishers. (READ: Closing the gender gap in agriculture)

This is slowly changing, with more women taking on major roles such as fish catch and survey enumerators, savings club officers, and conservation enterprise managers. Many are also moving on from record-keeping, food preparation, and organizational housekeeping tasks to assume leadership positions in policy development, planning, and governance. (READ: Women and organic farming: Ending hunger one garden at a time) 

These are just a few of the women changing our fishing seascapes forever. Thousands more in their coastal communities are working actively with the men in their families and neighborhoods, so that there will be more food and more secure families well into the future. – Rappler.com 

May Blanco is the senior manager for gender integration and  fisheries organizational and institutional development in the Philippine office of international conservation organization Rare, which is promoting sustainable management of municipal waters and responsible fishing behavior among Filipino fishers.

In one of the Cabinet meetings early on in President Rodrigo Duterte’s term, it was suggested that all key messages of the executive departments run through the Office of the President’s communications office. This was to give order to what the government was saying. It was a sort of centralized system so that one voice prevailed in various platforms and this would drown out peripheral noises.

The President’s reply came as a surprise to some: he rejected the idea outright. It was an instinctive response, saying it was better to have various messages. The outcome? The disarray would keep everyone, including his opponents, confused.  

More than a year-and-a-half into Duterte’s presidency, we have seen how this tactic has worked to his advantage. He floods us with mixed and changing messages, many of which are without context, his mind lurching from one subject to another in his long extemporaneous speeches and press conferences that are, in reality, monologues. Many of his statements are unchallenged in real time because it is not easy for reporters to interrupt the President.  

While Donald Trump takes to Twitter to vent, Duterte takes to the microphone to rant, leaving us in any of the following states: a) baffled about what he really meant; b) angry at his misogynist remarks, among others; c) jarred by his inconsistencies; and d) tired to the point of tuning out.

Overall, the effect is chaotic. While this may seem deliberate, part of a well-planned strategy to deflect from more pressing issues – his son’s alleged involvement in smuggling, his closest aide’s unusual interest in a multi-billion peso frigates deal of the Navy, and his bank accounts which did not match his salary as mayor – it simply arises out of the chaotic personality of the President. He has no boundaries, his thoughts bump into each other, resulting in incoherence. 

Meandering speech

A typical example of a Duterte speech was the one he delivered in February during the Manila Times Business Forum in Davao. Here’s how it went, based on the 10-page transcript.

• He began with the Marawi conflict and the loss of 167 soldiers and policemen
• Leaped to the International Criminal Court
• Followed this with his war on drugs
• Jumped to international treaties and Senator Grace Poe’s citizenship case
• Reminisced (again) about his election campaign and how Governor Imee Marcos was his lone supporter in Luzon 
• Segued to the Marcos burial in Libingan ng mga Bayani
• Crossed to the colonial history of Mindanao
• Mentioned climate change
• Talked about OFWs in Kuwait
• Returned to drugs
• Went down memory lane when, as congressman, he negotiated with Saudi Arabia for the release of OFWs from Davao who were caught by the religious police selling rosaries
• Shifted to Boracay (“I will close Boracay. [It] is a cesspool”), which made big news but he actually stayed on the subject briefly, saying about a dozen lines about it
• Quickly dropped a line or two about succession if he dies (“The Constitution will be followed”)
• Recalled his firing of the Maritime Industry Authority head
• Ended with why he likes the military (because all it takes is one command for them to move) 

Whew! His speech was interspersed with his usual curses and angry tirades.

This reflects how his mind works: there is no coherent plan, no map to chart out his thoughts. He focuses on events as they come, reacting to situations, what catches his fancy and gives him his sugar highs, combined with ideas he picked up from earlier meetings or conversations. In the process, he resurrects old angers and hurts, all of these self-propelled.

Media and the right balance

For the news media, this poses an enormous dilemma: do we have to report on his every statement, crowding the news with his words? This means that we have little or no time left to look deeper into the comings and goings in the Office of the President. How to get the right balance is a challenge we face.

Past presidents wanted to project disciplined messaging. They focused on policy and the big picture, notably Fidel Ramos, who repeatedly reminded the public about the country’s need to be globally competitive. He urged the country to look outward, was boring at times, but he tried to elevate the national discourse. 

In the case of Duterte, he has turned messaging upside down, stoking endless controversy and exposing his paltry policy vision. He governs using chaos, engages in a selective battle with oligarchs (those who have crossed him) and the media (which have subjected him to close scrutiny).

Chaos, coupled with instilling fear, which has been the standard modus operandi of Duterte – this is the essence of his strongman’s rule. The unfortunate thing is, our institutions are not strong enough to withstand his assaults. – Rappler.com 

In recent weeks, we’ve seen an almost comically obvious crackdown on the critical press. Rappler has been banned from presidential events as it faces the threat of shutdown and now a tax evasion complaint. President Rodrigo Duterte is back to scoring the Philippine Daily Inquirer and ABS-CBN in his speeches. 

The public is made to doubt the credibility of media groups that point out this administration’s wrongs because doing so, according to the spiel of diehard supporters, is unpatriotic, destructive, and unethical.

People are eager to punish critical reporters, but what of the other side? What of the reporters who sound as if they are supportive of the administration?

Take this interview by Leo Palo, a radio reporter for dzME. On March 7, Palo invited Presidential Communications Secretary Martin Andanar to his show to talk about Special Assistant to the President Bong Go’s possible Senate bid.

The topic, being one of public interest, is acceptable. But what is cringe-worthy are the praises sung by Palo, a Malacañang reporter, for the President’s right-hand man.

“Si Secretary Bong Go kasi, is sabihin ko nga, ang ano diyan is a man of a few words. Pero grabe kapag umaksyon lalong-lalo na sa public service. Hindi na kailangan magsalita, talagang ginagawa na niya,” an enthusiastic Palo said on air.

(Secretary Bong Go is, I’ll say it, a man of few words. But he really acts, especially in public service. He doesn’t need to talk, he really acts.)

He went on to talk about the “worldwide support” for Go when he faced the Senate during the hearing on the Philippine Navy frigates deal.

Palo, reading out a comment from a listener, even relayed a suggestion to Andanar.

“Ano kaya kung magtayo na lang tayo ng, siyempre, ito gaya nito, Secretary Andanar: ‘Dapat itayo mo na ang Go for Senator Bong Go Movement.’ Movement ang gusto nito,” said Palo. 

(What if we just establish, like this comment, Secretary Andanar: ‘You should put up a Go for Senator Bong Go Movement.’ This person wants a movement.)

With Andanar’s own effusive compliments for Go and Palo only reading out pro-administration comments from listeners, the entire interview came across as overwhelmingly in favor of the government.

Palo did not even discuss Go’s alleged involvement in the frigate deal, subject of the hearing, or ask any questions about it. In fact, he didn't ask Andanar any substantive question at all.

The interview was largely a conversation propping up Go’s possible Senate run. 

‘“Mabuhay ka (Long live) SAP Bong Go. Yes for Senator!”’ intoned Palo, reading listeners’ comments. 

“Sabi ni Mika… 'Go, go Bong! Go, yes for Senator!' Ayan na, ang dami na – sangkatutak na ito. Hindi ko na mabasa isa-isa (So many of them, I can’t read them all one by one),” he said. 

Palo and Andanar even discussed a possible campaign slogan for Go (“Gorabels 2019”) and a campaign jingle (“Wake me up, before you go, go…”).

This is not the only case of such pandering media.

Angelo Palmones, in a show on dzRH, labeled reports on Go’s alleged involvement in the frigate deal as “fake news” as he interviewed Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque.

“Gaya nito, isang katulad nitong very glaring na fake news ano ho. Dahil sa pagdinig mismo ng Senado, naliwanagan na wala naman talagang basehan, pero pinaninindigan pa rin ng Philippine Daily Inquirer. Anong puwedeng gawin ng taong bayan o ng mga nasa-subject sa ganitong mga pekeng balita?” he asked Roque on February 22. 

(Like this very glaring fake news. Because in the Senate hearing, it was clear that there was really no basis but the Philippine Daily Inquirer still stands by their report. What can the public or those subjected to such news do about such fake news?)

Palmones, rather than take a neutral stance on the issue, went ahead and labeled the Philippine Daily Inquirer as a publisher of "fake news" and declared there was no basis for its report. He echoed the government’s position rather than allow his listeners to make up their own minds by discussing the facts of the hearing. 

Who is biased?

Objectivity, impartiality, as most people understand these terms, mean you don’t take a side. You're not biased for or against a person. 

Another standard of good journalism is a reporter’s ability to be critical. You report not just the newsworthy words or actions of a public official, but also point out the possible repercussions and pose questions with the interest of the public in mind.

A reporter can be objective and critical at the same time. But a reporter can’t be a suck-up to government and be critical too.

A reporter who is too chummy with public officials, who allows the wave of an official’s popularity to get in the way of critical reporting, deserves the suspicion and doubts of the public they are supposed to serve.

Consumers of news should watch out for commentators, reporters, and anchors who let public officials get away with an inaccurate or unfair statement, who ride along with the government’s script or narrative, and who conveniently forget to ask questions that go to the heart of a controversy.

Nowadays, it’s too easy to be pro-government. You’ve got a charismatic president whose popularity will protect you. You’ve got officials who are more likely to be interviewed on your show if they know you won’t ask tough questions. You’ve got a mass of online accounts that will "like" your pro-government Facebook post or egg you on when you commend the President.

Our current political environment rewards those who side with power and punishes those who dare question it.

It’s hard to be critical. You’ll get punished for it, whether in the form of daily online death threats or a government crackdown. The President will threaten you in his speech. The trolls will run after you and your family. You might lose your job. 

Critical media are branded by rabid Duterte supporters as "bayaran" (paid hacks). Yes, media corruption is real. But the government is yet to prove that reporters critical of them have been paid by their enemies.

And never forget, "bayaran" can go both ways. If reporters can be paid by politicians to destroy their opponents, politicians can also pay reporters to report favorably on them. The public should be equally wary of the latter, as with the former. 

Preserving relationships

It doesn’t help that public officials have taken to skewing the relationship between government and the media. 

Case in point, Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque’s oft-repeated assertions that I “lost” my relationship with Duterte and now have to suffer the consequences, i.e., no more access to the President. 

Such assertions are a disservice to the public and a total misunderstanding of the role of journalists.

Roque, who defended journalists’ rights as a former human rights lawyer, seems to think that journalists should protect their “friendship” with government officials more than their role as government watchdogs.

“That’s what happens when your news source loses trust in you. You lose access to your news source,” said Roque in an interview with radio station dzMM on February 21.

“They were together since the elections so the President treated Pia like his own granddaughter. The President really felt he was betrayed,” he said the next day on UNTV. 

But reporters aren’t obligated to please government officials. 

The Constitution does not grant rights to media on the basis of how great their relationship with the government is. As Roque himself said in a press conference after I was banned from Malacañang, personal dislike is "not a valid reason"  to bar a reporter from the Palace. Of course, when it was revealed that Duterte himself ordered the ban, Roque changed his tune. 

For Roque, it seems, relationships with the powerful trump all other considerations. Perhaps such thinking is acceptable for politicians. But journalists are not politicians. 

It’s true that when a reporter’s source feels they were misquoted or treated unfairly, they have a right not to reply to the reporter if they reach out again. But Duterte’s act of totally prohibiting Rappler coverage goes far beyond this right. It’s overkill and, as the National Union of Journalists in the Philippines says, it’s petty. 

It’s true that, since I began covering Duterte in September 2015, we developed a certain rapport. I’ve been to his house and his favorite bar, met his family, ridden in his car and helicopter, even shared a drink with him. 

It’s normal for reporters to get to know the person they are covering. It’s even been rewarding, being able to observe such a fascinating person up close.

But Duterte and his underlings should never for one second expect that reporters would prioritize the preservation of this rapport over their job to report critically about his manner of governance. 

What’s more, Duterte and his underlings must respect that professional distance and not take critical articles personally. 

I continue to consider some officials in this administration as my friends. My respect for them grows when they don’t let Rappler’s reportage affect our relationship. They tell me they understand that we are just doing our job.

It’s this class of public servants who really deserve the title. They may get their own bad press at times, but they will never lose the respect of journalists. – Rappler.com