The first time I met her was in a small meeting of the Coalition for Justice in a nondescript, 2nd floor office space used for Christian worship services. It was a few days before the Supreme Court oral arguments on her quo warranto case. Members of the Coalition were scrambling to organize a valiant campaign against what many considered an inevitable defeat.

Then chief justice Maria Lourdes Sereno entered the room smiling then proceeded to greet almost everyone in the room, shaking hands, hugging, and making beso-beso. “Strange,” I told myself. For someone facing her life’s greatest challenge, she actually looked…happy. 

When it was my turn to greet her, I said “Good afternoon po, Chief Justice.”

And she replied “Oh, Comrade Teddy!”

Victim of seppuku

Up until a few months ago Sereno, as head of the judiciary, was one of the most powerful officials in the country. She presided over the Supreme Court and the entire judicial branch of government. She also headed the Judicial and Bar Council (JBC) and the Presidential Electoral Tribunal (PET). Like Zeus, she was primus interpares among the gods of Padre Faura.

Unfortunately, a more powerful god occupied the seat of power in Malacañang.

Sereno earned President Rodrigo Duterte’s ire for questioning his list of drug personalities and his regime’s use of extrajudicial killings against suspected drug addicts and pushers. She also opposed the President on key issues brought before the Court – the Marcos burial at the Libingan ng mga Bayani, and the imposition of martial law in Mindanao, including its extension.  

Her controversial and unprecedented 18-year appointment by former president Noynoy Aquino gave the impression that she was an Aquino lackey who would make it hard for Duterte and his allies, including the Marcoses and Arroyos, to get their way in the SC.

Taking the cue from Duterte, administration allies in Congress endorsed a badly-crafted impeachment complaint filed by Marcos loyalist and Gloria Macapagal Arroyo lawyer Larry Gadon. While the complaint itself turned out to be a dud, the hearings revealed many sordid details about the Court, including the animosity between Sereno and her colleagues and her alleged non-compliance with the SALN (Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth) requirement when she applied for chief justice.   

Finding an opportunity, Solicitor General Jose Calida filed a novel petition for quo warranto with the SC, alleging that Sereno’s failure to regularly file her SALNs when she was still a UP law professor 15-20 years ago showed her lack of proven integrity, thereby disqualifying her from the post of chief justice.

Calida’s petition was denounced by the legal community, including the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) and a battery of law deans and professors. Allowing Sereno to be ousted via quo warranto not only violated the constitutional provision on impeachable officials and the rules of court, but would also make justices of the Court, and the entire judiciary, vulnerable to undue pressure and intimidation from the Executive.

In the end, it was not Congress but her fellow justices that did Sereno in. The resentment over her leapfrogging to the post, with an unprecedented 18-year term that would have outlived them all, was heightened by her supposedly abrasive management style and refusal to play by the Court’s old boys club rules. All Duterte had to do was throw them a knife for them to end up stabbing Sereno and each other. 

In the words of Justice Alfredo Caguioa, “This case marks the tjme when the Court commits seppuku – without honor.” 

The fall from Mt Olympus

From a position of power and privilege, Sereno found herself a victim of tyranny, vendetta and intrigue, not to mention misogyny, character assassination and social media bashing. 

With the Palace, Congress, and her colleagues all conniving against her, she ended up relying on her friends, sorority sisters, members of her evangelical church, and a collection of disparate anti-Duterte forces that were just beginning to get their acts together.

Forced to take a leave of absence from the SC, Sereno’s recourse was to go down to the grassroots, arguing her case in schools, churches, various communities, organizations and networks. But it was not a one-way street. This also gave her the opportunity to listen to the issues and concerns of similar victims of tyranny and abuse, especially those at the margins, and to view the harsh realities from the ground.  

On that warm summer afternoon when she called me “Comrade Teddy”, she had just come from Cebu where she was able to meet with jeepney drivers who told her about the problems they faced with the government’s jeepney modernization program. She seemed genuinely agitated by the hardships faced by the drivers and the difficulty of having to amortize P1.7 million for a brand new vehicle. 

Weeks later she would be in a forum listening to testimonies of how martial law was affecting Moro and lumad communities in Marawi and other areas in Mindanao.  

The road to Damascus

Sereno herself admitted that taking a leave was the best thing that happened to her. She was able to step back and look at her situation in a different light. More importantly, she was able to engage with people not as a god of Padre Faura but an ordinary mortal fallen from grace.

Again, in that meeting where she called me her “comrade”, Sereno spoke not only about her case or the need for judicial independence. She also talked about feeling a sense of liberation. Of having the freedom to talk about things that mattered to her and other people.

Like a freshly minted activist, she riled against the rotteness and corruption of the judiciary, the systemic and structural problems that lead to injustice and poverty, the lack of morals and need for social and spiritual transformation. And that win or lose, she will be speaking out and taking the side of the poor and oppressed. 

And I found myself thinking, is she for real? 

Quo vadis?

On the day that the SC ruled with finality on the quo warranto case last week, Sereno gave an even more impassioned speech. As citizen Sereno, she vowed to take up the cudgels for the voiceless and oppressed. She would create a people’s movement and even take to the streets to pursue her newfound advocacy.  

Sereno is no activist. She is an academic, corporate lawyer and government counsel with little experience in litigation and nothing to show for in public interest or human rights lawyering. 

But then it’s not every day that one gets ousted as the chief justice of the Supreme Court by an emerging despot. Tyranny, oppression, and the struggle for justice, freedom and democracy have a strange way of turning people into fighters. 
 
The challenge now is for Sereno to take to heart the lessons of her ouster, strengthen her engagement with the oppressed and marginalized, deepen her understanding of our social problems, find her place in the struggle and not turn back. – Rappler.com

Acting Chief Justice Antonio Carpio delivered this speech to the graduates of the National College of Public Administration and Governance, University of the Philippines, on June 22, 2018.

Allow me to warmly congratulate the 2018 graduates of the National College of Public Administration and Governance (NCPAG) of the University of the Philippines. I have high hopes that you will contribute greatly to the advancement of public governance in our country, especially in ensuring the development of our nation as a united and undivided sovereign state with its territorial integrity and maritime zones intact. 

Our nation today is facing radical proposals to change its historic identity, its grant of regional autonomy, and its foreign policy. Because these proposals are radical and divisive, they require the deepest examination from all sectors of our society – from lawyers, public administrators, historians, political experts, businessmen, scientists, farmers, NGOs, and all other sectors in our society. I call these proposals "Ideas that Divide the Nation. 

We should be wary of new concepts imported from foreign shores and alien to our history as a people, which could divide the nation and even lead to the dismemberment of the Philippine state. Let me point out a few examples of these divisive ideas that have been introduced into our national discourse. 

First divisive idea: First Nation

The first Idea that Divides the Nation is the attempt to introduce the concept of a First Nation into our legal system. The Memorandum of Agreement on Ancestral Domain, initialed by the Arroyo administration with the MILF in 2008, and which the Supreme Court declared unconstitutional, contained a provision designating the Muslims as the First Nation in the Philippines. 

In Canada and the United States, the First Nations were the native inhabitants of North America at the time of the arrival of the European settlers starting in the 16th century. The European settlers or Caucasian white people later became the majority and dominated the earlier people – the Indians – thus creating two distinct classes of people inhabiting the same territory. The native inhabitants or the Indians have a different DNA and facial features from the Caucasian white people. The Indians and the Caucasian white people belong to different races. Clearly, there are real First Nations in Canada and the United States. These First Nations are thus accorded their own territory or ancestral domains. The First Nations receive royalties for the exploitation of natural resources in their ancestral domains. 

In the Philippines, there is no First Nation. If you take the DNA of people in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao, whether Lumads, Christians, or Muslims, you will find they all belong to the same Malay race, except probably the Aetas. Practically all the people of the Philippines belong to one race. They are all native inhabitants of the Philippines. There is no foreign race that settled in the Philippines and dominated the native inhabitants. 

The native inhabitants of the Philippines were originally all Lumads. When Arab traders arrived in Sulu in the late 15th century, they introduced Islam and some Lumads became Muslims. In the early 16th century, Magellan arrived in the Philippines and some Lumads became Christians. However, the Lumads, Muslims, and Christians in the Philippines belonged to the same race – the Malay race – as they, of course, still do today. Thus, there is no First Nation in the Philippines. 

Three thousand years ago, the first wave of Austronesian migrants, the ancestors of the Malay race, arrived in Batanes from Taiwan. Over the next 2,500 years, the Austronesian migrants spread over to Luzon, Visayas, Mindanao, Borneo, Indonesia, peninsular Malaysia, central Vietnam, Micronesia, Melanesia and Polynesia, reaching as far as Madagascar off the southeast coast of Africa and Easter Island off the western coast of Chile in South America. It was the widest migration of people by sea in the history of mankind. 

Before the sea-faring Austronesians arrived in the Philippines 3,000 years ago, the Philippines was inhabited by Aetas, who came to the Philippines in an earlier wave of migrations from the Asian mainland, possibly through land bridges. The ancient migrations of peoples were driven by climate change and other natural calamities, not by conquest to subjugate a native population. These ancient migrations were not state sponsored as was the colonization and plunder by the Old-World nations of the Americas, Africa, Oceana and Asia starting in the Age of Discovery in the 15th century. We do not consider as the First Nation those who migrated to the Philippines more than 3,000 years ago because of natural phenomena. 

Historically, there is no First Nation in the Philippines. Any attempt to designate a group of people in the Philippines as the First Nation is historically baseless and a fraud on the rest of the Filipino nation. Such designation is divisive and will only create conflict within the same Filipino race. 

Second divisive idea: Indigenous people

The second Idea that Divides the Nation is the legal concept of indigenous people under the Indigenous Peoples Rights Act of 1997 or the IPRA Law. Under the IPRA Law, Filipinos who are Christians, and those who have adopted Western customs and practices, constituting the vast majority of Filipinos, are not indigenous people of the Philippines. As a legal, social, and historical concept, indigenous people are the First People or the Native People, inhabiting a territory from the beginning, in contrast to those who settled in, occupied or colonized the territory later. If the Christian Filipinos like me, and almost all of you here, are not indigenous to the Philippines, where did we come – from Europe, the Middle East, Africa, America, or Mars? 

We are definitely not Europeans, Middle Eastern, Africans, or native Americans. We certainly are not Martians. We are, of course, beyond any shadow of doubt, indigenous to the Philippines. We have the same DNA, belonging to the same Malay race, as the non-Christian Lumads who are called indigenous people under the IPRA Law. The ancestors of Christians Filipinos were Lumads too before they converted to Christianity. Should their descendants now be designated by law non-indigenous to the Philippines just because their ancestors exercised their religious freedom upon the arrival of the Spaniards almost 500 years ago? 

The fact that some native inhabitants of the Philippines embraced Christianity, Islam, or any other non-indigenous religion and adopted Western or Middle Eastern customs and practices did not, for sure, make them non-indigenous to the Philippines. But the IPRA Law disqualifies them from being called indigenous people. Under the IPRA Law, Filipino Muslims are also not indigenous people. 

The IPRA Law discriminates against the majority of native Filipinos on the basis of religion, language, customs, and traditions. The worst injustice is that the majority of native Filipinos like you and me are no longer considered indigenous people of the Philippines. Under the IPRA Law, we are non-indigenous, meaning, we are alien settlers, occupiers, or colonizers in our own country. This is historically false, divisive, and should never form part of our legal system. 

Third divisive idea: Right to self-determination

The 3rd Idea that Divides the Nation is the proposition, found in the proposed Bangsamoro Basic Law or BBL now pending before Congress, that the BBL represents the aspiration of the Bangsamoro people to their right to self-determination. The right to self-determination, a recognized principle in international law, has two meanings, depending on the socio-political environment where it is used. First, the right to self-determination can mean the right of an ethnic minority to self-governance within a single indivisible state. This meaning is consistent with our Constitution. Second, the right to self-determination can also mean the right to secession or independence from a state. This meaning is anathema to the Constitution and must not be allowed to be grafted into our legal system. 

There is an absolute need to clarify that the right to self-determination proposed to be embodied in the BBL is the right to self-governance within a single Philippine state. There should be no ambiguity whatsoever about this. If there is no clarification, or if there is even a shadow of doubt, then the right to self-determination can be interpreted in the light of the long history of secessionist movements among the Muslim communities in Southern Philippines. That would mean that the right to self-determination is the right to secede. This will result in the dismemberment of the Republic, a prospect too horrendous to contemplate. 

I once asked a Spanish judge why the Catalonia autonomous region in Spain held a referendum on whether or not Catalonia should secede from Spain. The Spanish judge replied that the Spanish Constitution is silent on whether the autonomous regions can secede or not. The central government in Madrid interprets the silence as prohibition to secede, while Catalonia interprets the silence as non-prohibition to secede. The Spanish judge then gave a very sound advice: be sure that in your law granting autonomy to any region, there is a clear and categorical prohibition to secede, including a clear and categorical prohibition to hold any referendum on secession. Thus, we cannot incorporate into our legal system, through silence, negligence, or ignorance, the utterly divisive idea of the right to secede in the BBL. 

Fourth divisive idea: Enforcing the arbitral ruling means war   

The 4th, and my last example of an Idea that Divides the Nation, is the Duterte administration's foreign policy in the West Philippine Sea which can be summarized in this way: if we seek to enforce the arbitral ruling, China will go to war against the Philippines. 

President Rodrigo Duterte has announced that he was "setting aside" the arbitral ruling by an UNCLOS arbitral tribunal  that declared without legal effect China's notorious nine-dashed line in the South China Sea. The arbitral tribunal held that the Philippines has a full 200 NM Exclusive Economic Zone (EEZ) in the West Philippine Sea, a maritime area larger than the total land area of the Philippines. By any yardstick, the landmark ruling was an overwhelming victory for the Philippines and the Filipino people. 

However, President Rodrigo Duterte has opted not to enforce the ruling in order to secure loans and investments from China, even as China continues to relentlessly encroach on Philippine territory and maritime zones in the West Philippine Sea. We all know that the fish, oil, gas, and other mineral resources in our Exclusive Economic Zone in the West Philippine Sea are worth far more than whatever loans and investments that can come from China. Besides, the country's national territory and maritime zones, involving sovereignty and sovereign rights, are beyond any monetary value. 

The President has warned the Filipino people that China will go to war, resulting in a massacre of Filipino soldiers, if the Philippines insists on enforcing the arbitral ruling, as if war is the only means of enforcing the ruling. The President has declared that there are only two options for the Philippines: either we talk to China or go to war with China. There are, of course, other options. There are many peaceful means of enforcing the ruling. Let me mention some of these peaceful means of enforcing the ruling. 

First, since the ruling recognized our full Exclusive Economic Zone in the West Philippine Sea, we can file an extended continental shelf claim beyond our Exclusive Economic Zone off the coast of Luzon. This is similar to our extended continental shelf claim in Benham Rise in the Philippine Sea. The UN Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf, which approves applications for an extended continental shelf, will of course recognize the arbitral ruling issued by a tribunal created under UNCLOS, the same Convention that created the Commission on the Limits of the Continental Shelf. In filing our extended continental shelf claim off the coast of Luzon, China will not even be a respondent or defendant. 

Second, we can enter into a sea boundary agreement with Vietnam over our overlapping extended continental shelves beyond the Spratlys. Vietnam has already proposed that we sign such a sea boundary agreement. Likewise, we can enter into a sea boundary agreement with Malaysia over our overlapping EEZs between Borneo and Palawan. We can enter into these sea boundary agreements because the arbitral tribunal ruled that there is no geologic feature in the Spratlys that can generate an exclusive economic zone. These sea boundary agreements apply the arbitral ruling by state practice, thus reinforcing the ruling. In these sea boundary agreements, China will not even be a party. 

Third, we can send our survey ships to Reed Bank, and if they are turned back by Chinese coast guard vessels, we can bring the matter in a new arbitration case under UNCLOS. We can demand damages from China for preventing us from exploiting the Reed Bank which has been declared in the arbitral ruling as part of the Exclusive Economic Zone of the Philippines. 

Fourth, we can file another arbitration case against China for preventing our fishermen from fishing within the lagoon of Scarborough Shoal, in violation of the arbitral ruling that Filipino, Chinese, and Vietnamese fishermen can fish in the territorial waters of Scarborough Shoal. We can include in this new arbitration the continuing destruction by Chinese fishermen of the coral reef system in Scarborough Shoal. We can ask the arbitral tribunal to award damages to our fishermen for the economic losses they have suffered due to the Chinese actions. 

Again, these are just some of the peaceful and legal means of enforcing the arbitral ruling. In particular, seeking arbitration is never a hostile act. The UN Charter expressly recognizes arbitration as a peaceful means of settling disputes between states. 

Not a single, right-thinking Filipino asserting our sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea has called for war against China. It is utterly false to claim that war with China is the necessary consequence of asserting our sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea. War as a means of enforcing the arbitral ruling is simply a preposterous idea. 

Our Constitution prohibits resort to war to enforce the arbitral ruling. The Constitution expressly mandates that the Philippines renounces war as an instrument of national policy. The UN Charter has expressly outlawed war as a means of settling disputes between states. If we declare war against China to enforce the arbitral ruling, we will surely be condemned by all members of the United Nations and even severely sanctioned by the UN Security Council for violating international law and the UN Charter. If the Philippines goes to war, the obvious outcome will be the Philippines fighting not only China, but also the rest of the world. The Philippines will be a pariah in the community of civilized nations. 

Under our Constitution, Congress has the sole power to declare war by two-thirds vote of the House and Senate voting separately. I have not heard a single congressman or senator calling for war against China to enforce the arbitral ruling. Besides, we all know that if we go to war against China, we will surely lose and lose badly. Obviously, only a fool will resort to war against China to enforce the arbitral ruling. 

War is not an option and has never been an option. That is why when China seized Scarborough Shoal in 2012, we did not send the Philippine marines to retake the shoal. We sent our lawyers to The Hague to invalidate China's nine-dashed line claim under international law. And we won an overwhelming victory. Therefore, we should continue resorting to international law to enforce our sovereign rights in the West Philippine Sea. We should never waiver in enforcing the arbitral ruling in accordance with international law. 

We all know that China is the only state that has seized Philippine territory and maritime zones. China is the only state that is actually a threat to the territorial sovereignty and integrity of the Philippines. That is why our China policy – our response to the Chinese threat in the West Philippine Sea – must not divide the Filipino nation. The nation must be united in defending Philippine territory and maritime zones in the West Philippine Sea against China. When a nation is facing an unjust and unlawful aggression from a foreign state, the leaders of the nation must unite the people in the defense of the state. What our national leaders should never do is to mindlessly divide the nation, like claiming that there will be war if we seek to enforce the arbitral ruling. 

My dear graduates, we must all be steadfast in fighting Ideas that Divide the Nation for a divided nation cannot focus on national development, and worse, a divided nation is a weakened nation in defending national territory and maritime zones. We must always be on guard and resist any and all attempts to weaken the nation in defending our national territory and maritime zones. Every Filipino citizen, whether in government or in the private sector, whether holding the highest or lowest position, has a solemn civic duty to preserve, protect, and defend what belongs to the Filipino people. We owe this duty to the present and future generations of Filipinos. 

Thank you and once again, congratulations to the graduates. – Rappler.com 

Hindi ko alam kung paanong naging Chinese ang larong Chinese garter, o iyong larong may goma o garter na nakabanat, hawak o nakatali sa katawan ng dalawang bata, at niluluksuhang pataas nang pataas ng mga paslit na contortionist, babae man o lalaki. Hindi ko rin alam kung talagang galing sa Canton ang paborito kong pansit bearing the name, o ang lumpia, kung talagang sa Shanghai nga ba nagmula.

At least alam kong may masarap na pansit sa Malabon na kung tawagin ay pansit Malabon, kahit pa sa Marikina ko nabili at kinain. May ensaymadang Malolos, longganisang Lucban, may bagoong Balayan, maganda ang tsinelas mula Liliw, Laguna at marami pang ibang place-specific na tsibog o produkto.  

Masayang laro ang Chinese garter. Well, hindi talaga ko naglaro, pero mukhang masayang laro batay sa panonood ko noong bata ako. 

Paumanhin kung medyo regionally at racially charged ang isinusulat kong ito. Gusto ko lang kasing balikan at muling bigyang pansin ang halos nakalimutan nang usapin, at ang medium ng nangyaring "kalakalan" o trading ng mga kababayan nating mangingisda sa Panatag (Scarborough) Shoal. 

Barter? Bagong laro?

Hindi ko na kailangang uminom ng pang-middle class na gatas para matandaan ko ang detalyeng ito noong bata ako. Dahil namangha, hindi na nawaglit sa memorya ko noong bata pa ako – Grade 5 yata sa Coloong Elementary School – ang ayon sa 1980s edition ng Guiness Book of World Records ay ang pinakamalaking barter trade, in terms of price and magnitude, sa kasaysayan ng mundo. Ito ay ang pagpalit ng sampung jumbo jet ng kompanyang Boeing ng Estados Unidos kapalit ang ilang bilyong bariles ng langis na galing naman sa Saudia Airlines, ang gagamit ng sampung eroplano. 

Wow, nagkasundo silang magpalit ng ganoong karaming produkto!

Hindi na nawaglit sa alaala ko ang panggigilalas sa ganoong kalaking palitan o barter. Pero habang isinusulat ko ito, nakabukas ang multiple tabs sa aking laptop, naka-log ako sa internet at kahit anong kalikot ko, kahit anong browse, hindi ko makita sa internet ang sinasabi ko. Eksklusibo na yata sa libro. Iyong makapal. 

Simple lang naman. Sa dictionary meaning nito, ang barter ay nangangahulugan ng palitan ng goods o services, produkto o serbisyo, kapalit ng iba pang goods or services nang hindi na ginagamitan ng pera, anumang currency ito. Kapag ginamitan ng pera, bentahan na ang tawag dito. Kung sa serbisyo, upa.  

Pero ang hindi binabanggit sa depinisyong ito ay ang mas malalim na elemento ng pagpapalitan. Mas malalim na elemento maging ng bentahan o pag-upa para sa serbisyo. Ang elemento ay ang pagkukusang-loob na pailalim sa transaksyon; ang kalayaan ng transaksyon, ibig sabihin, malaya siya para tumanggi o sumang-ayon sa transaksyon.   

Malayang palitan?

Mahilig ako sa mga lumang relo o vintage watch. Marami akong Facebook group na kinabibilangan. Nagbebentahan kami doon ng lumang relos. Nagpapalitan ng impormasyon kung paano pangangalagaan ang mga pabebeng relos na natural, maselan, madaling masira.  

Nagpapalitan kami ng kaalaman kung sino ang magaling gumawa ng relos. At minsan, nagpapalitan kami mismo ng relos. At sa diwa ng barter trade, minsan, nakipagtransaksyon na rin ako ng relos kapalit ng mga libro. Literal na libro na inakda ko. 

Maluwag na tinanggap ito ng katransaksyon ko. Maluwag din sa akin. Sino ang nakadehado at nakaliyamado? Walang ganyan sa barter trade. Pipiliin mo ang ipagpapalit, pipiliin din niya ang manggagaling sa iyo. Kapag ramdam ng isa man sa barter trading partner na hindi katumbas ng kaniyang ipagpapalit, kapag lugi, pwedeng umayaw sa palitan. Kapag ayaw, e 'di ayaw. Ganyan ang prinsipyo ng palitan.

P'wede bang ipagpalit, halimbawa, ang mumurahing relos sa kotse? Hindi ba lugi sa palitan? Again, kung malaya at kusang-loob, bakit hindi?

P'wede bang ipagpalit ang lumang relos sa serbisyo ng tao? Bakit hindi, kung malayang sinang-ayunan ng magkabilang panig. 

Maraming variation sa tawag ng barter trade: swap, palitan, ex-deal, etc. Pero lahat ng ito ay dapat nakasalig sa kusang-loob at kalayaan sa pakikipagtransaksyon. Hindi napipilitan, hindi natatakot o tinatakot. 

Kaya nang sumingaw ang balita noong isang araw hinggil sa mga kababayan nating mangingisda na kinuhanan – later, after much explanation and presscon from the Palace, nakipagpalitan o nakipag-barter daw– ng produkto ng Chinese Coast Guard, nakita ng marami sa atin ang paraan ng "palitan" ng produkto. Well, kaya ito ang tinatalakay ko.

Maliit na halaga ng produkto ang kasangkot dito. Ano ba naman ang ilang piraso ng isda o instant noodles o kaha ng sigarilyo o bottled water na ipinalit diumano sa isda? Bakit pa ba pinag-usapan? Bakit pa pinagkaabalahan? Bakit pa kailangang magpa-presscon? 

Dahil bukod sa malaking usapin ng soberanya sa teritoryo, sa likod ng ilang kilong isda kapalit ng instant noodles o bottled water ay ang binabanggit ko: kalayaan at kusang-loob. Willingness. 

Gaya ng sinasabi ng paborito kong Asec ng Palasyo, simbolismo. Simbolismo itong tiyak.

Isinisimbolo ng "ipinagpalit" na pinaghirapang hulihing isda ang kung anong mayroon tayo... sorry, kung anong wala pala tayo. Leverage. May armas ang nakipagpalit, may malalaking barkong pandigma. Lalo pa't kasama na sa standard na linya ng Pangulo ang posibilidad ng makipaggiyera sa Tsina (at ang kawalang kakayahan nating tumutol dahil wala tayong armas para makipaggiyera) kapag tinutulan natin ang anumang balak nilang pagkamkam. O sa puntong ito, anumang balak nilang makipag-barter ng isda kapalit ng sigarilyo, kapalit ng kahit anong kanilang maibigan. Dahil bawal silang tutulan dahil wala tayong kakayahang makipaggiyera.

Sa huling isda at ang "pakikipag-barter" sa Chinese Coast Guard makikita at mararamdaman kung sino tayo. Kung ano na tayo. Na lagi nang kinokompirma ng ating Pangulo. At hindi ito larong-bata.  – Rappler.com

Bukod sa pagtuturo ng creative writing, pop culture, and research sa Unibersidad ng Santo Tomas (UST), writing fellow din si Joselito D. De Los 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.

The way José Rizal is celebrated in the Philippines as a national hero finds no match in the world. Shrines and monuments dedicated to his figure are abundant throughout the archipelago, and his name indicates often the most prominent street or plaza in town. Rizal is a subject in the university as it has became a symbol of Philippine patriotism. Some historians have gained fame and money becoming eminent "Rizalistas," and I was not surprised at all when I got to know that there is even a small group of religious believers in Mount Banahaw called Rizalistas, who claim Rizal is the real messiah. Rizal is the favorite among the national heroes, and the best word I find to call the relation between Filipinos and Rizal is devotion.

Although Rizal was already esteemed as a top intellectual and writer both in the Philippines and Spain, the making of Rizal as a national hero was a legitimate and well-intentioned operation carried out a few decades after his cruel execution during the American period. And the problem with having him converted into a national hero is that it has resulted in some unexpected consequences: an exaggerated focus in his life: what I have called "chismography" about Rizal, the oblivion of other world-class Filipino intellectuals – Sanciangco, De Los Reyes, Kalaw – and a neglect of what it should be most valued: his writings. 

I remember a day in class when I asked my students what they could say about Rizal, and I was told he was a babaero (womanizer) and had many many girlfriends. "That's why he is our role model!" one said cheerfully. I remember a student telling me she failed in class because she forgot the color of the shirt Rizal was wearing when he was shot. I can recall the faces of disappointment every time I bring my foreign friends to Rizal's shrine, a reliquary-like place where you can find a long list of the professions Rizal supposedly practiced and the list of the 14 languages he was supposed to master, but nothing that could help to understand him.

The state of semi-divinity achieved by his figure carries other problems: "I will not achieve what he did in 35 years. He is a genius and he liked to work hard. I admire him, but I prefer a simple life," another student told me. Rizal has been placed on such a high level that some young Filipinos do not think of him anymore as a human person whose achievements could inspire.

The lack of understanding of Rizal comes, in my modest opinion, because Rizal was a writer and suffers the irony of being a national hero in a country where most people do not like to read. Sadly, the proliferation of monuments, shrines, and homages have not been accompanied by a close scrutiny of his writings, which are most often read in a very shallow and purely nationalistic way. Apart from Noli and Fili, the rest of his abundant and rich written production is almost impossible to find in bookstores, and if not for the outstanding efforts of another patriot – Teodoro M. Kalaw – in collecting and editing most of his precious letters, those would not be easily available today.

The centennial of his birth moved the government in 1961 to publish most of his works in several volumes. However, the editorial criteria was far from the rigor demanded today in reliable editions and, most importantly, with the exception of Noli and Fili, and some other English translations, most of the works of Rizal are still only available in a language most Filipinos do not speak: Spanish. Even for his masterpiece, the only critically annotated bilingual edition was published by Vibal Fundation in 2011.

I perfectly understand that renaming a square or placing a statue in a square is way easier than publishing critical editions, but I truly believe, given the current circumstances, that the works of José Rizal truly deserve it. Establishing carefully the texts, annotating it in order to make more accessible to all kind of readers, and providing translations to the most important Filipino languages would be an undeniable exercise of patriotism that should not be longer delayed. No one can blame Filipinos for not reading Rizal when, in the first place, most of his works are not easily available.

It can happen that a Filipino reader does not have the patience to read his novels, but it could well happen that this same reader might enjoy reading his private letters or short articles. Although Filipinos cannot access the stylish beauty of his Spanish, they could get engaged with his rich arguments, with superb critical thinking skills, his uncommon intellectual brightness. Admiring Rizal without understanding him is a kind of empty nationalism and blind devotion. I do not find a better way to pay him a tribute than to read his work and getting to understand his formidable prose and his compelling ideas. Before being a hero, he was already a gifted writer, and Rizal, like another writer, wanted to be read. – Rappler.com

Jorge Mojarro has lived in the Philippines since 2009. He holds a PhD in Philippine colonial literature, teaches Spanish language and culture at the Instituto Cervantes de Manila, and conducts research for the University of Santo Tomas. He is a self-proclaimed lover of Philippine gastronomy.

As our brother priest Father Richmond Nilo was being interred in Cabanatuan on June 15, the clergy of the Archdiocese of Lingayen-Dagupan gathered in prayer before the Blessed Sacrament, to atone for the sins of blasphemy, sacrilege, and murder that our blessed Lord and His Church are being subjected to these days. 

We shared with one another our doubts and confusions, our frustrations and heartaches, our anger and our afflictions, our tears and our hopes. We shared our faith. We shared from the heart. We do feel the pain of persecution, but we also know we are not forsaken. The consoling assurance of the Lord was overwhelming, too.

Searching our hearts

We allowed our hearts to be disturbed by the noise of blasphemy, sacrilege, and murder. We are not quiet. Our souls are ready to be disturbed for conversion.

In what ways have we contributed to the erosion of moral values so much relished by Catholic Filipinos for centuries? Is there anything of what we do or how we live or how we preach that makes those who ridicule the Church and curse God sound right?

Have we failed the Lord and failed in our mission to be credible teachers? Is not the ignorance of our people about moral values an indication that we have failed in our mission to teach? Are we really being persecuted or are we just being shaken from stupor?

We recalled how Shimei threw stones and cursed David, but David refused to stop the cursing. Perhaps the Lord will look upon my affliction and repay me with good for the curses he is uttering this day. (2 Sam 16:12)

Is this the time to live the Lord's command, "Bless those who curse you, pray for those who mistreat you"? (Luke 6:28)

We prayed and searched for answers in grief but with hope, with anger but with tenderness.

The authority of experience 

There is an authority that we churchmen hold or, at least, believe we hold. That authority comes from the faith transmitted to us from the first companions of Jesus. We teach that the Church stands on solid rock with Jesus as the cornerstone. We are keepers of tradition. Tradition has its authority.

There is another authority that universities hold. Schools of learning keep safe the authority of truth. They hold the wisdom than men and women down the ages have handed down to us. Experts and masters are holders of this authority.

But there is yet another source of authority that is growing in credibility among us – the authority of experience. It is neither divinely revealed truth nor a researched or invented learning. It is the glorification of experience as the best teacher. How can we refute experience?

These times perhaps demand from us not just to guard and teach the Truth that we have received or look at new expressions to teach those truths. Our countrymen need to experience us as friends, not as moralizing guardians. Our countrymen need to experience kindness from us before we give a homily on compassion. Our countrymen need to experience us as one of them. We can preach to empty stomachs if the stomach of the parish priest is as empty as the stomach of his parishioners. We must let go of our entitlements.

The growing importance of experience as teacher also prompts us, priests, to see and believe that God is at work among our people, that it is not just books that teach but ordinary people as well. Each person has a lesson to teach. If we are to continue our mission as teachers, we must not forget our need to be taught all the time. This calls for much humility from us. It needs patience. It needs an open mind.

We have met the enemy and he is us

We must not keep quiet but neither do we forget that we preach best not by talking but by example.

We admit: We need to improve our homilies. This is the perennial complaint against us. The people crave for relevant, nourishing, and refreshing preaching. We need to make the sacraments and sacramentals memorable experiences in faith. Sloppy vestments and careless gestures at the altar do not inspire. We must avoid being too casual with sacred things, lest the sacred events become disdainful.

There are days of fasting and days of abstinence. We should fast more. Let us go farther and fast on our own beyond the required laws of fasting. Let us move deeper than where we are and return to ascetic practices. If our nation seems possessed by evil, let us not forget that some evils can only be cast out by prayer and fasting (cfr. Mark 9: 29).

We recognize that the best place to change society is in the confessional; unfortunately, we hardly sit there. The confessional increases our capacity for love. Conversions that happen in confession are the enduring conversions that change society. We need to take time to be visible again in the confessional waiting patiently for every penitent. True love waits. Mercy is not in hurry.

But we cannot keep quiet

How can we keep quiet when the blood of the killed is crying from the ground? How can we keep quiet when the majesty of God is being pounced on? How can we keep quiet when the noise of vulgarity is all over the air? How can we keep quiet when fake news seems more credible than truth? 

Yes, we are dirty and filthy, dirtier than our detractors can imagine, but the Lord has looked kindly upon us. We are not here as holier than the flock. We are here as the most miserable among sinners but we have been raised to this dignity by the sheer kindness of the Almighty. We have no illusions of sanctity. But not even our sins can stop us from teaching the Gospel. Woe to us if we do not preach. We cannot keep quiet. We would be judged by the Word made flesh for keeping quiet. Not even our sins can stop us from proclaiming the Gospel because the power of the Gospel is not from us but from God. We are earthen vessels (2 Cor 4:7)

From deeper prayer, we will refute error. From more fasting, we will share our love. From longer silence, we will teach right. From being forgiven, we will forgive. From being broken, we will heal. From our loneliness, we will console. From our dirt, we will rise with our people to return to the house of the Father.

It is not in our nature as priests to keep quiet. We are men of the Word. We cannot keep quiet, but we are not noise makers. We break our silence in order to be teachers by example ready even for martyrdom. We will keep teaching. Kill us if they wish but our blood will speak louder than our voices. There is a message that only martyrdom can teach. We will not be threatened.

Our only fear is to fail the Lord. We are not afraid. We trust in the Lord. For us life is Christ and death is gain! (Phil 1: 21) – Rappler.com

Editor's Note: This is a summary of prayer reflection session of the clergy of the Archdiocese of Lingayen-Dagupan on June 15. Rappler is publishing this with the permission of Lingayen-Dagupan Archbishop Socrates Villegas, who wrote and signed this summary.

If there is one huge casualty of President Duterte’s first two years, it is the rule of law. It is that certainty that our behavior is steered by a body of laws, guided by the idea that law is a path to justice and not a weapon to be used for partisan aims, not a thing to be trampled on because it hinders a harmful centerpiece project.

It wasn’t a long time ago when Duterte uttered these words: “My adherence to due process and the rule of law is uncompromising.” Some of us held our breaths, others were hopeful as we listened to his inaugural speech.

These have turned out to be hollow. In reality, what we’re experiencing is the great unraveling of an anchor of our democracy, young and immature as it may be.

It began with the war on drugs, the single biggest destroyer of the rule of law. A total of 6,542 were killed from July 1, 2016 to March 20, 2018 – or an average of about 25 per day, statistics from the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency show. Of these, 4,075 were murdered in so-called legitimate operations; the rest, 2,467, were carried out by vigilantes.

Tidal wave of immunity

These killings have unleashed a tidal wave of impunity as non drug-related murders surged during Duterte’s first two years in office. The Philippine National Police (PNP) has recorded 23,518 killings – which they call Homicide Cases Under Investigation – or an average of 33 a day. These do not include killings by cops in police operations and not all are linked to drugs. The PNP claims that 11.43% were related to drugs and the rest were not, including cases where they are still establishing motives for the killings.

This is the effect of the war on drugs, publicly supported by the President who applauded policemen who went for the kill, emboldening them. Duterte set the tone, blurring the borders between law and lawlessness.

The most brazen example was the slaying of Mayor Rolando Espinosa Sr, an alleged drug lord, in his prison cell in 2016 by members of a police unit, the Criminal Investigation and Detection Group. Despite the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation that it was a “rub out”, and not a shoot-out as the police raiding team claimed, the perpetrators have gotten off the hook, thanks to the President.

Duterte ordered the reinstatement of the team leader, Superintendent Marvin Marcos, and even announced that he would pardon Marcos if found guilty. This lucky police officer remains unscathed and enjoys acceptance by the PNP top brass.  Instead of being held to account, Marcos is cloaked with immunity. He is among the untouchables in Duterte’s unrelenting war on drugs.

Uneven application of the law

Most of the victims, however, are from the poor communities, reinforcing the elitist system that Duterte promised to change, and flouting a core tenet that the law should apply equally to all.

The poor are the easiest to go after because they’re powerless, their families, voiceless, and hardly do they have access to justice.

To illustrate the logic of this war on the poor, an exchange between Justice Antonio Carpio and Solicitor General Jose Calida during an oral argument in the Supreme Court in April is instructive.

After a discussion on the 18-page police circular 16-2016 which pointed to mainland Chinese and Filipino-Chinese syndicates as dominating the drug market in the country and which set guidelines for the anti-illegal drugs campaign, Carpio asked Calida:

       Carpio: How many Chinese or Filipino-Chinese drug lords have been neutralized [arrested, killed] by the PNP since July 1, 2016?                

       Calida: … there were 419 Chinese who were arrested… 

       Carpio: Not killed?

       Calida: Arrested…

       Carpio: …How come the flagship project of the President is concentrated on going after small-time peddlers? Why not the big-time drug lords?

       Calida: …the instruction of the President is to go after all of them. However,
                    the big-time Chinese drug lords are outside of our jurisdiction. They are in China.

The Mocha standard

Another pillar of our democracy, freedom of speech, has been split to suit Duterte: one standard for his mouthpiece, Mocha Uson, and another for the independent media.

Uson’s offensive defense of Duterte’s controversial kiss of an OFW in Seoul – comparing it to the kissing of Ninoy Aquino by two women who were on the plane with him on the day of his return to Manila in 1983 when he met his death in the hands of an assassin – belongs to the realm of the “sacred” right to free speech. That’s how the President put it.

But when journalists write reports that scrutinize Duterte and his allies and hold them accountable, he disparages these as “fake news”.

Why, the President argued, freedom of the press is a privilege, not a right, conveniently forgetting our Constitution’s bill of rights.

Law as weapon

In two high-profile cases, Duterte further eroded the rule of law when he used state agencies and twisted interpretations of the law to go after his enemies, two women who questioned his war on drugs.

Senator Leila de Lima has been in jail for more than a year now, made to suffer for trumped-up charges. She was his Exhibit A, a clear and loud message to his detractors.

Now comes Exhibit B: the ousted chief justice, Maria Lourdes Sereno, who was kicked out of the Supreme Court by her colleagues in an unprecedented and questionable quo warranto case. The executive department, through the Solicitor General, took a short cut, instead of letting Congress go through the impeachment process.

The Constitution is explicit that Supreme Court justices, among other high public officials, can be removed through impeachment.

This executive gambit worked because it capitalized on the seething resentment by a number of Supreme Court justices against Sereno who, unfortunately, turned out to be an ineffective leader.

Strongmen’s club

That’s how Duterte, the strongman, leads. He makes his own rules, unmindful of the damage he inflicts on institutions.

After all, a strongman has little attachment to mores because, ultimately, his rule is all about himself. Duterte is his own polestar.

He sees the world in black and white. Either you kill drug users or they will destroy our society. Either you write news that panders to him or you're “fake news.” Either you shut down Boracay or it will wallow in dirt. Either we go to war with China or we appease it.

And Duterte is comfortable in his own bubble: he gravitates toward like-minded leaders. He does not hide his gushing admiration for other autocrats like Xi Jinping, Vladimir Putin, the anti-democratic president of the US, Donald Trump, and Kim Jong-un. This club reinforces his worldview.

What’s disturbing is that 50% of Filipinos favor autocratic rule, according to a 2017 Pew Research Center survey of 38 countries. “Unconstrained executive power has its supporters…This type of regime is particularly popular in several nations where executives have extended or consolidated their power in recent years, such as the Philippines, Russia and Turkey,” the Pew survey said.

We may be looking at 4 more years of an unmoored presidency. – Rappler.com

Imagine coming home to an immaculate neighborhood after a hard day’s work. The garrulous men who’d heckle you no end are gone. The shirtless, silent drunk who stank has disappeared. You could sleep tight tonight – and forever – knowing there wouldn’t be yet another painful karaoke session by the road from sunset till dawn.

And, yes, you could add color and texture to that imagination, because that’s the only place where they belong: in the realm of your imagination.

Just because President Duterte said so doesn’t mean Metro Manila will soon be rid of what you call the dregs of humanity, the scum of the earth, the jobless, good-for-nothing men who squat and spit on the streets during the day and batter their women at night.

That’s like living in dreamland, which Metro Manila is not, as it bursts with 13 million people sauntering in gated subdivisions and choking in clogged waterways. Plus the tambays, Filipinos who stand idle, a term that finds its roots in the phrase, "stand by".

The metro’s tambay is a menace to peace, said the President, in justifying his order to the police to arrest men who loiter drunk and convert the streets into their entertainment parks.

Following his directive, the Philippine National Police has so far brought to precincts more than 3,000 tambays, including the alleged tambayGenesis Argoncillo, who was unlucky enough to have been spotted by the police, brought to the precinct and mauled to death by the other detained men who probably didn’t like his tambay look, too, or so said police witnesses.

Among the police catch were minors who were gallivanting way past the local curfew in their village, the men who drank and smoked in the streets, and those accosted for “public nudity”. This, on top of illegal vendors who mushroom in and out, depending on the season, and students who enter computer shops late in the evening.

What responsible parent or gainfully employed Filipino would not welcome this? 

To go home to a safe and quiet neighborhood is a right as basic as commuting in trains that work or vehicles that could move beyond traffic – rights that we all know have become a luxury.

Every town or city and its villages are obliged to keep their streets clean, calm and safe. Local ordinances exist for this reason. 

What has made this task complex and often unrealistic is not just the lack of jobs or the impermanence of work, but the presence of more than half a million informal settler families in the whole country, most of whom live in Quezon City, Rizal, and, yes, you guessed it, Davao City.

The President figured, if he could wipe clean the streets of Davao as a mayor, he could certainly repeat this on a grand scale. 

Here lies our problem: he’s no longer mayor. 

There is logic to the sheer power and vast resources that a Philippine president enjoys. Along such privilege comes a mandate to think big and act big. 

We have no quarrel with any public official’s resolve to make the tambay behave; we have a quarrel with a president who thinks that’s his job to do so. 

We have no quarrel with any effort to ensure peace in the neighborhood; we have a quarrel with the inhuman and impulsive ways it is done – as if the tambay would rather stay in the streets than sit in his living room, if he had a living room to begin with.

A president who takes the long view and accepts the complexities and the dying state of Metro Manila will choose to address the problem comprehensively and not wipe it off like some dust. Because like dust, the tambay will appear again, and again, long after Duterte finishes his term in 2022.

We could cite a litany of steps, long discussed and crafted by previous administrations, about how best to address the conditions that give rise to the tambay, but that is not our point here.

The President has bigger problems on his big plate, such as the unwanted tambays in the West Philippine Sea.

Unless he is using this to further harden the climate of fear that pervades in the capital, or wants to distract us from the more urgent concerns of the day, Duterte should just leave this job to the mayors.

Because he's no longer one. – Rappler.com

The front of war and peace of the government and the communist National Democratic Front (NDF) has just taken its most recent twist and turn: the suspension of peace talks, including backchannel negotiations, for an announced period of 3 months so that President Rodrigo Duterte, according to him or his spokesman, can "personally review" all signed peace agreements and also hold related stakeholder consultations.

Those agreements would date from the 1992 framework Hague Joint Declaration and would presumably include the latest set of at least initialed, if not signed, agreements, like an interim peace agreement, that were supposed to usher the scheduled (but aborted) resumption of formal peace talks this June 28.   

In the meantime, NDF chief political consultant and Communist Party of the Philippines (CPP) founder Jose Maria Sison, in what do not appear to be official NDF or CPP statements, has called attention to the situation that there would be "no ceasefire in the next 3 months" because President Duterte wanted "to launch his military offensives first and find out the results." But this is also because the CPP, in its official statements, has also been calling for intensified tactical offensives against the "US-Duterte fascist regime."  

Sison predicted more bloodshed. Indeed, clashes between government troops and communist rebels have flared up anew.

What is to be done? We humbly make an interim peace proposal consisting of two main measures or courses of action.

First, I would call on fellow independent civil society peace advocates and groups like the Sulong CARHRIHL Network, Waging Peace Philippines, and the All-Out Peace Movement, not aligned with either the government or the communists, to soonest initiate an alternative review of all the key peace agreements to parallel, counterpart, and even contribute to President Duterte's announced 3-month review, including on the matter of foreign venue and 3rd-party facilitator for the peace negotiations.

This can take the modest form of quickly engaging a feasibly-sized expert panel of selected independent peace advocates and scholars to come up with a timely review report for this purpose, if not also public-type consultations and focus group discussions culminating in a presentation of the panel's report.  

To repeat, it is important that this alternative review be independent, and not one tailored or pre-ordained to suit the government or the NDF positions. It is also important to consciously employ this alternative review as a mechanism to generate better public understanding and participation, which is a longtime weakness, in this peace process – unlike in the Mindanao peace process.

Like the positive international actors there, the Royal Norwegian Government (of Norway, not "Norwegia") should give more material support to independent civil society peace advocacy and constituency-building, including that which is local community-based.

Civil society peace advocacy on the government-NDF front has in recent times tended to be dominated by aligned groups, which can also be counterproductive to public support for the peace process because of concomitant public perceptions that the process supports the political and military agenda of one side. Whether a peace group or formation is independent or is aligned also has a bearing on credibility when the concerned group or formation engages in monitoring of violations of human rights and international humanitarian law or of any ceasefire.

This brings us to our proposed second interim measure for the "waiting period" of 3 months. Let there be arranged a simultaneously declared interim stand-down during this period. If the idea is that the peace negotiations still continue but that formal peace talks have only been postponed, then why continue killing each other in the meantime? You can wait for the peace talks to resume, but you cannot wait to wage war against each other? What kind of sincerity is that in terms of commitment to the peace process?

To borrow from the fully signed but aborted stand-down agreement of June 8, 2018, "Stand-Down shall be understood to mean temporary cessation of hostilities in which the contending armed units and personnel of the Parties stay where they are ('as is where is'), take an active defense mode, and shall not commit any offensive action or operation against combatants and civilians." Is 3 months of this asking too much, given what is at stake, including in terms of Filipino lives that should matter?  

The avowed objective of the agreement is "in order to provide through goodwill and confidence-building measures, the positive atmosphere conducive to moving forward and completing the peace negotiations…"  Does this objective not hold too for the 3-month period of reviewing all signed peace agreements? On the other hand, a negative atmosphere due to intensified armed hostilities may itself sabotage the desired resumption of peace talks. Why risk a negative atmosphere or, should we rather say, a further negative atmosphere, that may sour the review and altogether kill the peace talks? Stand down now! – Rappler.com

Soliman M. Santos Jr is a judge of the regional trial court of Naga City, Camarines Sur. He is a longtime lawyer specializing in human rights and international humanitarian law; legislative consultant and legal scholar; as well as peace advocate, researcher, and writer. His initial engagement with the peace process was with the first nationwide ceasefire between the government and the NDF in 1986, particularly in his home region of Bicol, a longtime rural hotbed of the insurgency.

Ang binatikos ng Pangulo ay ang sarili niyang interpretasyon sa Bibliya. Hindi naman ganoon ang turo ng pananampalatayang Katoliko. Sigurado akong hindi ganoon ang turo sa catechism ng mga religious education teachers ng Ateneo at San Beda. Baka absent siya nung i-explain ng teacher. 

Ang Adam and Eve story ng Book of Genesis ay nasa Bibliya, hindi lang ng mga Katoliko. Nandu'n din ito sa Jewish Bible, Protestant Bible, Orthodox Bible, at Iglesia ni Cristo Bible. Nagkakaiba lang sa interpretasyon. 'Yung paraan ng interpretasyon ng Pangulo ay may pagka-fundamentalist. Napakalayo tuloy sa ibig ipahiwatig ng malalim na palaisipan na nakapaloob sa salaysay ng Genesis Chapter 3.

Tungkol ito sa taong nilikhang malaya ng Diyos at may kakayahang gamitin ang kalayaan sa mali. Palaisipan nga kasi ang kuwento. Alam din ng manunulat na walang ahas na nagsasalita sa totoong buhay. (The text is literary, not literal.) Matalinghaga ang lengguwahe niya. Wala ring sinabi ang Bible na nilikhang "perfect" ng Diyos ang mundo. Hindi rin sinabi na pinadala ng Diyos ang ahas para tuksuhin si Eba. Saang Bibliya kaya niya binasa iyon? 

Ang kasalanan ay hindi lang tungkol sa pagkain ng isang bawal na bunga (wala ring binabanggit na mansanas sa kuwento) na nagdulot daw ng malisya. Ito'y may kinalaman sa pagnanasa ng tao na "maging katulad ng Diyos," o "magdiyos-diyosan."

"But the snake said to the woman: 'You certainly will not die! God knows well that when you eat of it your eyes will be opened and you will be like gods, who know good and evil.'" (Genesis 3:4-5)

Dito madalas natutukso at nahuhulog ang tao. Ganito ang nangyayari sa taong nahuhumaling sa kapangyarihan. Imbes na matulad sila sa Diyos, mas lalong nalalayo sa anyo ng Diyos.

Itong karupukan na ito ang taglay nating lahat sa ating pagkatao. 

"For just as in Adam all die, so too in Christ shall all be brought to life…" (1 Corinthians 15:22)

Ang bagong Adan para kay St Paul ay si Hesus.

"So, too, it is written, 'The first man, Adam, became a living being,' the last Adam a life-giving spirit." (1 Corinthians 15:45)

Sa pagpapakumbaba at pagbubuhos ng sarili lamang nakakatulad ng tao ang Diyos (Philippians 2). Ito ang ibinigay na halimbawa ni Kristo, ang Anak ng Diyos na nagkatawang-tao, at naging bagong Adan, huwaran ng bagong sangkatauhan.

May ikinuwento ang Pangulo sa Korea na nang-abuso sa kanya noong bata pa siya. Baka kailangan niya ng tulong para ma-process 'yung trauma na naranasan niya at nagiging dahilan para maging ganoon ang pananaw niya sa relihiyon, sa Katoliko, sa mga pari. Meron naman talagang mga makasalanan sa Simbahan, pero meron ding nabubuhay sa tunay na kabanalan at kabutihan. Ang mga nang-aabuso ay dapat papanagutan. Pero hindi tama na kundenahin ang buong Simbahan sa pagkakasala ng ilan.

Paano siya magiging Pangulo para sa lahat ng Pilipino kung wala siyang paggalang sa mga mananampalatayang Katoliko?

Karamihan sa supporters niya ay Katoliko din, 'di ba? Igagalang naman siya ng mga Katoliko kahit hindi siya sumang-ayon sa pananampalatayang Katoliko. Pero ang hindi pagsang-ayon ay hindi lisensya para mang-insulto.

Iginagalang ng mga Katoliko ang tungkulin ng Pangulo, at ang mandato niya bilang Pangulo. Sana igalang din niya ang mga Katoliko kahit hindi siya sumang-ayon sa doktrina ng Katoliko. – Rappler.com

Obispo ng Caloocan si Pablo Virgilio David. Bise-presidente rin siya ng Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines.

My dear children of God in the Archdiocese of Lingayen-Dagupan: 

Through social media, you have been sadly exposed to the cursing, threats, and shaming by the President of our country. Choose to love him nevertheless, but stay in the truth of our faith. Be firm in faith.

He must have received so much rejection and hurts in the past that he blurts out so much hatred and angst now. If he had been loved much, he would be giving so much of that love, too. He could be a victim of his scarred past and his wounded background. Pray for him with compassion. We pray for his healing and for God’s forgiveness of him but we must rebuke his errors about our Christian faith. He is a person in authority and some of you might get confused when you hear him. To pray for him is not enough. We must serve you the truth as we pray for him. 

I am writing this to defend you from the gross errors that you have been hearing. If I keep quiet you might be misled. God gave you to us, your priests in Lingayen-Dagupan, as our children. It is our duty to teach you. Some of you might ignore me or even rebuke me; but that will not stop me from teaching those among you who sincerely ask for guidance. I cannot stop serving you the truth.

You have heard the President attack our Christian beliefs. The story of creation is being taunted repeatedly. You have been hearing him curse God. God has been called insulting names – words we always told you not to say or even write. You are even being challenged to leave this Church of your birth, the Church of your grandparents.

Here are some questions and the right answers from the YouCat (Young Catechism of the Catholic Church), and I encourage you to read it. 

Why did God create us? 

God created us out of love. God is love. God is mercy. Never forget or doubt that.

What is religion? 

Religion is man's natural longing for God. God has placed in our hearts a certain kind of restlessness that can only be cured if we rest in God.

What do we mean when we say "God created the world"?

It does not mean that God himself by His direct action created the world all at once, completed in 6 days, as if the Book of Genesis were an eye witness account. This error is called "creationism". (YouCat 41)

Creationism naively interprets biblical data literally. This a wrong interpretation of the teaching "God created the world". 

The creation account is not a scientific model to explain how the world began. When we say God created the world, we mean God willed the world. It means the world is not a product of chance. 

Each of us is a result of a thought of God, each of us is loved, each of us is necessary. (Pope Benedict XVI).

Does God want us to suffer and die?

God does not want us to suffer and die. Listen to what the saints say.

We have lost paradise but have received heaven; the gain is greater than the loss (Saint John Chrysostom). 

Human weakness cannot upset the plans of God. A divine master builder can work even with falling stones (Cardinal Michael Von Faulhaber).

O God, to turn away from you is to fall. To turn to you is to stand up. To remain in you is to have sure support (Saint Augustine).

Is that not beautiful and wise of God to do? Only a beautiful and wise God can turn sin into a great blessing. The devil is opposed to this kind of love. The devil cannot understand or refuses to accept what is so clear. The devil is blinded by pride so he cannot love like God.

What is original sin?

Although sin implies guilt for which one is responsible, original sin is not like that. 

Pope Benedict XVI explained it this way. Human beings were born with a drop of poisonous thinking of "not trusting God". Human beings look at God as a "rival" who curtails our freedom. Human beings harbor a "suspicion against God". Human beings think that we can be fully human if God is cast aside. Human beings trust deceit rather than truth. Because of this tendency, human beings sink to emptiness and death. That is what original sin is. Jesus came to lift us out of that emptiness and death.

What does "Church" mean?

The Church is all of us called forth by God. The Church is not just bishops and priests, deacons and nuns. The Church is people, the people called by God together. God wants to redeem us, not individually, but together. The Church continues what Jesus started. 

Is the Church a sinful institution?

Viewed from outside, the Church is only a historical institution perhaps with historical achievements but also faults. In its history, the Church had made mistakes and even crimes – a Church of sinners indeed.

But that view is quite shallow and incomplete. 

Christ is so involved with us sinners that he never abandons his Church even if the Church betrays him every day. 

The Church is an embroidery of sin and grace. In the Church, sinful humanity and holy godliness are one. The holiness of God never leaves the Church. 

Is it time to stop believing in God?

Said Pope Benedict XVI: "When God disappears, men and women do not become greater. They lose their dignity and splendor and eventually end up abused and used." 

This is what our present national situation is showing us. When we cast God aside and curse his name, killing becomes easier. Stealing is normalized. Vulgarity becomes funny. Adultery is applauded. All because we want God to disappear in our lives.

What is the second Commandment?

You shall not take the name of the Lord your God in vain.

What does the second Commandment require?

It is a terrible offense to blaspheme God, to curse using God's name. Places, things, names and people who have been touched by God are "holy". Sensitivity to what is holy is called "reverence". 

"Reverence is the pole on which the world turns," said Johann Wolfgang Van Goethe. We lose reverence for the sacred and we ruin the world.

What duties do citizens have toward the State?

A Christian must love his homeland. We must defend our nation in time of need, serve the institutions, pay taxes, vote and even run for office if needed. Every Christian has a right to offer constructive criticism of the State and its organs. The State is there for the people, not the individual for the State (YouCat 376)

When must we refuse to obey the State?

If a State should establish laws and procedures that are racist, sexist or destructive of human life, a Christian is obliged in conscience to refuse to obey, to refrain from participation and offer resistance. (YouCat 377).

Admonition

My dear children in the Archdiocese of Lingayen-Dagupan, please pray the rosary, go to confession and receive Holy Communion frequently. We are in a spiritual warfare against error and sin. Shield yourselves from error and guide your fellow youth in godliness. Read more about the faith. Study the true teaching of the Church. 

Harbor no grudge but be critical and discerning. Be respectful of your parents and those in authority and choose good manners all the time even if you hear and see the opposite. Do not bash back at those who bash you on social media. Fill social media with kindness and truth. Take courage but be loving all the time. Be firm in the faith. Bawal ang duwag pero huwag makipag-away. Conquer evil with good (Romans 12:21). – Rappler.com

Socrates B. Villegas is the archbishop of Lingayen-Dagupan. He is also a former president of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines. Villegas originally wrote this piece as a message to the youth of his archdiocese.

(This is the valedictory address of Maria Patricia S. Valena during the graduation of the University of the Philippines Diliman College of Law)

If I may, I’d like to begin with a story.

My parents had me when they were 21-year-old college students. I grew up going to UP not just to play in Sunken Garden, but also to sit quietly in the back of my mother’s undergrad classes and wait till she could take me to get ice cream at Shopping Center.

It took them a little longer than 4 years, but somehow, my parents both made it through UP while at the same time raising a family. They went to their classes, went to work, then came home to take care of me and my siblings. While times were sometimes rough, and money never enough, they always made sure that we were fed and clothed and most importantly, happy. (READ: Make or break: My freshman law story)

My mother, in particular, has shown me every single day what it means to live for others, and how to be a good person. I will never know anyone as hardworking and selfless as my parents, and I will never be able to thank them enough for everything they’ve done. To my parents – this is for you.

Of course my parents aren’t the only people I need to thank, since we all know that getting through law school is never a solo effort. In my case, I want to thank the rest of my family, friends, blockmates, sorority sisters, champion teammates in the Stetson and Jessup moot court competitions, everyone I worked with in the Bar Operations Commission Academics Committee and the Institute of International Legal Studies, and all my professors. I would not be here today if not for you. Thank you, from the bottom of my heart.

I was requested to keep this speech short, so to make this easier for everyone, I decided to forego writing a fancy speech and to stick with what I already know, which is law school. (READ: [OPINION] Gears shifted: From nurse to lawyer)

While everyone’s law school experience is unique, I believe there’s at least one thing we all have in common: fear. If there’s anyone here who never felt even the slightest bit nervous or anxious or afraid during their stay in the College, then I stand corrected, and I salute you. For everyone else though, I’m sure we all know what it feels like to be afraid.

Afraid of a professor, of recitation, of an exam, of stepping foot inside Malcolm Hall on days when it’s all just too much. Afraid of even getting out of bed in the morning because doing so means facing yet another day as a UP Law student. I’ve been there, we’ve all been there. We hear a lot about the grand manner of UP Law, but sometimes it feels like much of the grand manner is really just fear. From the moment we attended mock recitation before our freshman year and prayed we wouldn’t be called, till now, sitting here today, with the threat of November looming before us, we’ve constantly been taught to be afraid.

As a female student in this college, I’ve had to face an additional set of fears. The fear of being seen as overly competitive, overly ambitious, overly intense. The fear of being judged for my appearance, rather than for my work. The fear of having my accomplishments disparaged as products of charm, or any means other than actual blood and sweat and tears. For the most part, I and other women in this college have learned to rise above these fears. But they are real.

The College of Law teaches us fear, yes. But at the same time, it also teaches us how to overcome these fears, and if we can’t overcome them, to pretend they don’t exist and to keep going anyway. We learn to recite without our palms sweating. We stop breaking into a cold sweat every time the terror professor walks into the classroom. We realize that one failed Criminal Law II midterm is not the end of everything, and that a terrible recit will one day be a funny story.

In sum, we’ve all overcome fear in one form or another, one way or another, during our stay in UP Law. Today, we graduate and finally leave those fears behind. However, we leave Malcolm Hall only to face the so-called real world. And what kind of world awaits the UP Law graduates of 2018?

At times it feels as though we are graduating from one set of fears only to face even greater ones. There is much to fear in the Philippines today, from the rampant killings to the deliberate and calculated consolidation of power in the executive branch of government and its flagrant abuse of this power, in which the other branches of government are complicit. The current administration thrives on fear – creating it, perpetuating it, using it to immobilize those who dare to speak out. From the attacks of internet trolls to barely disguised political persecution, this administration has mastered the art of using fear to entrench itself in power and to silence dissent.

In this environment of fear, the rule of law has been perverted to mean nothing more than mindless acquiescence to the injustices perpetrated by the administration, all under the cover of so-called legality. Public office is treated like a commodity to be awarded to the highest bidder, and forfeited at the whim of the executive. Arrests are made on trumped-up charges or no charges at all. People are killed by the very authorities tasked to protect them. All this is done in the name of protecting the rule of law and bringing peace and order to the country.

In his address to the newest members of the Philippine Bar a few weeks ago, Justice Lucas Bersamin defined the rule of law as “the recognition that ours is a government of laws, and not of men, and the abiding belief in law.” I agree with this definition wholeheartedly. However, Justice Bersamin then went on to say that the principal ingredient of the rule of law is respect for the institution of the courts and of the duly constituted authorities. On this point, I must respectfully disagree.

Justice Aharon Barak of the Supreme Court of Israel wrote in the Harvard Law Review that “the substantive rule of law is the rule of proper law, which balances the needs of society and the individual. This is the rule of law that strikes a balance between society's need for political independence, social equality, economic development, and internal order on the one hand, and the needs of the individual, his personal liberty, and his human dignity on the other.”

When the institutions of democracy become agents of fear rather than protectors of each individual’s personal liberty and human dignity, such institutions lose the right to demand the people’s respect. The rule of law does not demand blind deference to institutions; rather, as Justice Barak wrote, it guarantees fundamental values of morality, justice, and human rights, with a proper balance between these and the other needs of society. Fear of the institutions of government has no place in a society governed by the rule of law. The duty to respect the rule of law is the burden not only of the governed, but even more so of those who govern. Its principal ingredient is not the people’s unconditional respect for government, but government’s respect for the rights under law of each person it is sworn to protect.

The true rule of law should be the goal of every democracy, yet it is sorely lacking in the country today. This is the real world we enter as graduates of the UP College of Law. What then is our duty, and how do we serve the rule of law when those in power are determined to destroy it, and to silence every dissenting voice?

There is no one answer to that question. We leave the College to pursue our own dreams and ambitions, and to carve out our individual paths as future lawyers. As we go our separate ways, perhaps we can all take to heart Chancellor Michael Tan's words at yesterday's University Graduation – that we must always do our best to curb anger and unkindness.

Above all else, we all have in common the duty to remember what Malcolm Hall taught us about fear, and more importantly, how to overcome it.

The College taught us that in the face of our fears, we are capable of much more than we think. Today, more than the cases and the codals and the commentaries, it is this lesson we need to take away from our stay in the College.

We need to remember that the rule of law is more than mere adherence to the rules we’ve memorized, and when faced with a choice, we must choose to uphold that which protects the rights and freedoms of each individual, and guarantees fundamental values of morality, justice, and human rights. We must choose to uphold the true rule of law, even when those in power use fear to attempt to silence us. The grand manner of UP Law requires nothing less.

To the UP Law Class of 2018, congratulations.

Maraming salamat at isang mapagpalayang gabi sa inyong lahat. - Rappler.com

Patricia Valeña is the UP College of Law's first female valedictorian since 2013. She won the Philip C. Jessup International Law Moot Court Competition national rounds, winning Best Oralist of the Finals, and represented the Philippines in the international rounds in Washington, D.C. She also won the regional championship of the Stetson International Environmental Moot Court Competition and was the Best Oralist in the international rounds. She was a research assistant at the Institute of International Legal Studies at the UP Law Center.

Hunyo 23, visperas mayores ng kapistahan ng mga pintakasi ng aming parokya, San Pedro at San Juan. Isa ako sa mga mapalad na nakadalo sa misa alay sa mga laykong lingkod ng simbahan, dahil sa oras din na iyon ay papasinayaan at babasbasan ang mga bagong lingkod ng Sangguniang Pastoral (PPC), kabilang ako.

Maliban sa panunumpang magaganap, ang homiliya ni Obispo Pablo Virgilio David ang isa sa aking pinakahihintay. Ito ang aking unang karanasan na makapakinig sa kanyang misa. Sa aking excitement ay nakalimutan kong buksan ang aking cellphone at i-record ang kanyang sermon. Ngunit ipinag-kibit ko na lamang ito ng balikat dahil “seize the moment,” ’ika nga.

Nagsimula ang kanyang momiliya sa pagbibigay-pugay kina San Pedro at San Juan bilang mga ebanghelista at mga tunay na alagad at kaibigan ni Hesus. Ibinahagi niya ang nakasaad sa sulat ni Juan (21:7-19), tungkol sa panahon na nabasag ang “katahimikan.”

Katahimikan. Nagkaroon ng ika nga’y “awkward silence” sa pagitan ni Hesus at ng kanyang mga alagad. Lalo na kay Pedro. Sino ba naman ang matutuwa at makaiimik kung makita mo ang kaibigang pinagtaksilan mo? Ngunit sa kabila ng lahat na ito, binasag mismo ni Hesus ang katahimikan at siya ang nagtanong kung tunay na mahal siya ng kanyang nagtatwang alagad. “Reinstatement of Peter by Jesus, forgiving but stern.” Nanumbalik ang kanyang paglilingkod at pagpapatuloy sa pagpapahayag ng Mabuting Balita.

Napunta sa panibagong diskurso nang ikuwento ni Bishop Ambo na umaga ng araw na iyon ay may isang taga-media na nag-text sa kanya, hinihingi ang kanyang panig tungkol sa panibagong komento (patutsada, marahil) ng Pangulo laban sa Simbahang Katolika.

“Ano na naman kaya iyon?” ang sabi ko.“Hindi na muna ako magbibigay ng komento. Hindi ko pa kasi alam o nababasa iyon.”

“Pagkatapos kong matanggap ang text na iyon, pumunta ako sa Youtube. Ayun, nakita ko. May bago nga siyang sinabi. Alam ’nyo, kapag nanonood at nakikinig ako sa sinasabi niya, pino-pause ko kada linya niya. Sinusulat ko ang bawat sinabi niya. Bawat linya, bawat mura. Parang punyal na tumatarak sa aking kalooban. Gawing katatawanan ang paniniwala ng Simbahang Katolika. Kinakampihan daw ang mga adik, kriminal. Nananangis ako sa kaparian, para sa Simbahan.”

Hindi ako makaimik.

Walang nakaimik.

Katahimikan ang bumalot sa buong Simbahan.

“Aaminin ko. May mga [abusanteng] kaparian at lider sa Simbahan. At sa bawat panahon sa kasaysayan, mayroong ganyan. We won’t deny that the Catholic Church is a church of saints and sinners!”

Bumigat ang kapaligiran. Sinabayan ang pagtangis sa pagpatay sa tatlong pari sa mga nakalipas na linggo. Ngunit ang maririnig lamang ay panibagong patutsada. Mura. Pambabatikos. (READ: After priest killings, Duterte again threatens Church leaders)

“Dumaan ang mga hari, emperador, imperyo, diktador. May mga pagtuligsa sa Simbahan. Lumipas ang lahat ng iyon, pero ang Simbahan, nananatiling matatag. Hindi kasi kaming mga pari ang nagtatag nito,” pinaliwanag niya. “Ang Diyos.”

“Pagkatapos kong isulat ang aking magiging komento, pumunta ako sa chapel. Nagdasal, nagbuntong-hininga, nanahimik. Napagtanto ko na mahalaga sa mga panahong ito ang manahimik. Ngunit may panahon para manahimik. May panahon para magsalita.”

Nang matapos ang kanyang homiliya, isang bagay lang ang pumasok sa isip ko: naihambing ko ang aking sarili sa taong iyon na mula sa media. Nagtataka. Naghihintay ng kasagutan. Ano ang katotohanan? Naisip ko na bilang coordinator ng multimedia ministry ng aming parokya, kinakaharap ko ngayon itong itong hamon para sa ating mga katawan at sa mga taga-mass media na huwag manahimik sa panahon ng opresyon at maging tikom at bulag sa katotohanan. May panahon para basagin ang katahimikan, may panahon para magsalita. (READ: [OPINION]: We must not keep quiet)

At ngayon na ang panahon na iyon.

Hindi ko man na i-record ang buong homiliya at natandaan ang bawat eksaktong salita, ngunit tumatak sa akin ang mga katagang kanyang binitawan, dahilan upang isulat ang pagninilay na ito. ’Ika nga ng aming kura paroko, Reb. Padre Rey Amante: “Bawat haring [abusante] at baliko ang pamamalakad, may ipinadadalang propeta ang Diyos. At naniniwala ako na ang ating Obispo, Bishop Ambo, ang propetang iyon.”

Maraming salamat, Bishop Ambo. Ipupunla ko sa aking sarili ang mga aral na ito. – Rappler.com

Two years into the Duterte presidency, how is the Philippine economy faring?

On June 24, barely a month before his third State of the Nation Address, President Duterte offered this rare and grim diagnosis: “Now, the economy is in the doldrums.”

He based this on rising interest rates, the weak peso, and the slow start of projects in the regions. He also lamented a perceived slump of economic activity in the provinces, to which he said the antidote might be jueteng (an illegal numbers game). 

First, although the economy is not “in the doldrums” per se, there are red flags that could turn into real trouble if not addressed soon by the Duterte government.

Second, perhaps even more alarming is Duterte’s increasingly evident economic illiteracy.

Aside from being painful to watch, such economic illiteracy could lead to policies that threaten the incomes and livelihood of many Filipinos. Indeed, we’ve already had a sampling of such policies in the past 2 years.

Not in the doldrums

When you say something is “in the doldrums,” you mean it’s in a state of “inactivity, stagnation, or slump."

But the Philippine economy is far from being inactive, stagnant, or in a slump.

As of the first quarter of 2018 we grew at 6.8% (see Figure 1). Although below the economic managers’ stated target of 7% to 8%, this is still one of the fastest growth rates in Asia-Pacific.

Figure 1.

Duterte made his “doldrums” comment more in reference to a supposed slump of economic activity in the provinces. 

He said, “In Manila, they’re starting the megaprojects well. I supposed that they would be doing it on time. But in the provinces, it’s a doldrums thing.”

But Figure 2 shows that the regional economies are, in fact, doing pretty well.

Last year, 8 of the country’s 17 regions grew faster (or at least not slower) than the country in general. 

Even Davao Region grew at an impressive 11% vis-à-vis the country’s overall growth of just 6.7%.

Figure 2.

Data also confirm that Build, Build, Build is already underway despite initial delays. 

In the first 3 months of 2018, public sector construction grew by 25%, almost twice the growth of total government spending (Figure 3). Private sector construction also grew at 7%, up from nearly zero percent just a year ago.

Figure 3.

Robust economic growth is also manifest in the jobs figures. 

Although the country shed around 663,000 jobs in 2017 – mostly in agriculture – unemployment and underemployment have continued their long-run decline, clocking in at 5.5% and 17%, respectively, in April 2018 (Figure 4).

Likewise, joblessness data from the Social Weather Stations show a similar downward path.

Figure 4.

Signs of trouble

So, all in all, the economy is not “in the doldrums” as Duterte puts it. 

But be under no illusion: signs of brewing economic trouble are obvious if we look at other indicators.

Prices have accelerated in recent months. May’s 4.6% is the highest in 5 years, and is already 53% above the 3% inflation target of the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas or BSP (see Figure 5).

Lest Duterte forgets, his government is partly to blame for this inflation spike.

Although higher world oil prices explain most of it, the Duterte government is also responsible via TRAIN (the new tax reform law and the profiteering it inspired) as well as the rise of commercial rice prices (owing to mismanagement of the NFA). 

Figure 5.

Duterte also bemoaned the rising interest rates, saying it “destroys the existing [economic gains].” 

But note that the BSP raised its key interest rate twice in the past few months precisely to temper inflation, which was partly due to TRAIN.

Duterte also took a stab at economic theory, saying when “you raise your [interest rate], our [peso value] goes down, theoretically.”

But here, Duterte again gets it wrong: basic economics tells us exactly the opposite is what happens.

Higher interest rates spur capital inflows, and as investors haul their money into the country they exchange their dollars for pesos. This extra supply of dollars raises the relative value of the peso, thus strengthening (not weakening) our currency. 

The peso, at P53 per US dollar, is not just the weakest in 12 years but also the weakest in ASEAN. 

By the admission of Duterte’s economic managers, the weak peso is largely because of the growing trade deficit, in turn spurred by the colossal imports of Build, Build, Build. 

In other words, the weak peso signals that we’re increasingly borrowing from the rest of the world to pay for Duterte’s flagship economic project.

In this sense, Build, Build, Build is being financed by Borrow, Borrow, Borrow.

Aside from helping weaken the peso, there’s also reason to believe that Build, Build, Build will also exacerbate inflation – just like TRAIN – as its additional demand ripples throughout the economy.

Some analysts have already warned that the Philippine economy might be on the brink of “overheating.”

All in all, accelerating prices, higher interest rates, and the weak peso, can all be traced –albeit indirectly – to Duterte’s major policies like TRAIN and Build, Build, Build. 

Even so, Duterte seems blissfully (and dangerously) unaware of how his own policies affect the economy at large.

Jueteng and federalism

Aside from not understanding economic goings-on, Duterte also harbors an incoherent and nonsensical plan to boost regional development. 

To promote economic activity in the provinces, the first solution that comes to Duterte’s mind is to retain jueteng. “Now if there’s jueteng…at least money goes around. Some people will get hungry, others will be able to eat, [but] there’s commercial activity.”

Aside from being illegal and nontaxable, jueteng is hardly the prime mover of economic activity in the provinces, no matter how big an industry it may seem. Even if you replace it with an alternative (legal) game, for the most part the Philippine economy still does not run on such games.

While cleaning up the mess made by this unusual policy recommendation, the Palace also jumped on this opportunity to pitch federalism (via charter change) as another way to boost regional development. Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque said that federalism will “really provide the solution to the uneven distribution of growth.”

The avowed goal of Duterte’s federalism is to dethrone “Imperial Manila” once and for all and democratize economic growth nationwide. 

Indeed, many regions are being left behind. But a federal form of government is no guarantee of greater prosperity for Filipinos in the provinces. Done improperly, federalism might even worsen rather than abate existing regional inequalities.

For one thing, data suggest that a vast majority of regions are not ready to be fiscally independent. Figure 6 shows that richer regions also tend to be more economically self-reliant.

This is crucial because, absent a strategic sharing of resources, new federal states with small tax bases (like present day ARMM or Eastern Samar) might find themselves depending on dole outs from other, richer states. 

Figure 6. 

Economists have long argued that poorer regions can enjoy more finances even without a radical shift to a federal form of government. Many businessmen are also wary that such a tectonic political and economic shift could entail more costs than benefits. 

All in all, the problem of regional development is so complex that to suggest jueteng or federalism as cure-alls betrays not just Duterte’s incurably parochial mindset but also his glaring economic illiteracy.

Where are we headed?

In a way, we’ve always known that Duterte is economically illiterate. But as he enters his third year in office, things cannot go on like this.

A profound cluelessness about how the economy works is as threatening and perilous as Duterte’s authoritarian tendencies and deep-seated misogyny. 

Already, Duterte has shown his capacity to concoct and implement such pernicious policies as the ill-thought Boracay shutdown, the mismanagement of the NFA, or the unsustainable rise of SSS pension benefits. 

How many more bad economic policies will Duterte spawn in the next 4 years, and can we withstand them?

The phrase “in the doldrums” originally referred to a region of calm winds near the equator that slowed down passing ships. 

If we think of the Philippine economy as a ship, we’re not yet slowed down by the doldrums. 

Yet we may have a bigger problem at hand: from a distance, it seems that our captain is terribly drunk or fast asleep. Either way, he’s clueless where we’re headed and incapable of charting a steady course for our economy in the next 4 years or so. 

Is it any wonder that more and more passengers of this ship are getting worried?– 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. 

Openly LGBTQ+ are everywhere in the Philippines. Given this level of normalcy, pride events are organized in the Philippines’ central metropolitan cities – a celebration of gender diversity by parading in eleganza, extravaganza, and an ensemble of rainbows all over the route. (READ: 'Rise Up Together:' Metro Manila Pride March set for June 30)

Inspite of this environment, there are two sides of defining the extent of tolerance in the country. Philippine society is very much open and welcoming to LGBTQ+, though with certain conditions and limitations. It also varies per area.

The LGBTQ+ in Mindanao have more hurdles to face compared to those in the country's two other main island groups. Being an LGBTQ+ is already a daily struggle. This is further amplified when poverty and armed conflict are evident.

Diverse ethnic backgrounds, cultural differences, and religious beliefs also contribute to the perpetuation of problems and violence. These manifest through hate crimes, human rights violations, stigma, and discrimination. Rigid gender stereotypes and gender norms are more apparent in the communities as Mindanao is predominantly rural.

These issues still prevail because there is a lack of conversation in policy-making bodies. The absence of discussion about the rights of LGBTQ+s and their welfare not only promotes gender inequality but also reinforces an oppressive status quo.

Having gender lens shouldn’t stop in the inclusion of women in  decision-making processes. The invitation must also be extended to the LGBTQ+ community to make the policies genuinely inclusive, sensitive, and responsive. There is a need to recognize that issues in Mindanao affect everyone including the LGBTQ+s. Thus, their participation in public consultations and focus-group initiatives is essential.

The necessities of LGBTQ+s are often ignored in different circumstances especially in times of conflict and refuge. Temporary evacuation sites do not adhere to needs particular to the LGBTQ+s. These pose a higher risk to LGBTQ+s to experience various forms of violence. Furthermore, families led by same-sex couples are not recognized in relief goods distribution and disaster assistance. This problem also manifests in poverty alleviation programs of the government. Only traditional families or those that fit conventional norms are recognized by the State to avail of those benefits.

Meanwhile, the pending Bangsamoro Basic Law also posits questions on the effect of the statute as to how the LGBTQ+s will and can live in Muslim Mindanao.

These topics are not being considered as issues because there’s no legal recognition of and protection for the LGBTQ+ community. The anti-discrimination bill is still pending in Congress 18 years after it was first filed.

Meanwhile, local ordinances with a similar purpose have been enacted in 6 provinces and 18 cities all over the Philippines. 3 provinces and 3 cities are in Mindanao. However, none of them cover a predominantly Muslim area, leaving behind Muslim LGBTQ+s in the coverage. The enactment of more local ordinances to prohibit discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity must be encouraged.

Another issue is the increase in the number of identified People Living with HIV (PLHIV) in Mindanao. In a report by the Department of Health (DOH), 3 cities in Mindanao are included in the country’s urban areas with the highest HIV prevalence rate. Because of this, the virus is perceived as a disease of the LGBTQ+ population particularly because most identified PLHIV are men who have sex with men (MSM). Thus, LGBTQ+ people are being blamed for this.

This is unjustly used as a basis to generalize and describe them in a negative light. The close association of HIV/AIDS and the LGBTQ+ only adds to the social stigma of the community. Instead of publicly shaming and generalizing the negative judgment towards LGBTQ+, the public and private sector must pool resources to educate the public and prevent the proliferation of the virus.

As ignorance feeds intolerance, the lack of a gender and development curriculum in the country's education system takes a toll on the LGBTQ+ population. The absence of avenues to correct information on gender identity can create maltreatment and antagonistic connotations.  

A study on the correlation of sexual orientation and suicide risk shows that suicide ideation was more than two times higher among homosexual Filipinos compared to heterosexual Filipinos. This is not anymore surprising as LGBTQ+s experience intense discrimination and depression because of their identities.

In some instances, they are seen as possessed by evil spirits or as mentally ill who can be cured. Due to unawareness, LGBTQ+ references are wrongly interchanged, incorrectly associated, or ill perceived in such a way that they become part of jokes and profanities in daily conversations. (WATCH: Rappler Talk: #RiseUpTogether and becoming better LGBTQIA+ advocates)

An article in Outrage Magazine in 2013 said that violence experienced by LGBTQ+ people are underreported, thereby not addressed, especially in Muslim Mindanao. In fact, the article reported that in Marawi City, gay beauticians were being gunned down. Furthermore, abusive families are common and cases of harassment and abuse are widespread. These are most often unreported due to fear and intimidation.  Stories of abandonment and neglect of family members are typical narratives.

We should join together to eliminate these kinds of gender-based violence and promote gender justice. LGBTQ+s are human beings who deserve respect and have the right to live their life their way, no matter where they are from.

The issues presented are just a few of the many struggles the LGBTQ+ community in Mindanao experience in their daily lives. It is true that the LGBTQ+s in Mindanao have the same issues as the other LGBTQ+s in other parts of the country. However, it differs in the level of exclusion and violence that they need to deal with. As LGBTQs, they are facing problems from different aspects: economically, mentally, and politically.  They are marginalized in the political sphere, underserved in times of disaster and conflict, and challenged by society due to threats, victimization, and pressure.

Given these issues, we must emphasize the additional burden that LGBTQs in Mindanao face. When we champion the security and rights of LGBTQ+s in the Philippines, we must be as inclusive as possible. We cannot achieve peace and genuine development if gender equality is not upheld especially in Mindanao. Thus, recognition of the plight and establishment of solutions for the whole country are important. (WATCH: Rappler Talk: Getting to know Bisdak and Mindanao Pride)

If you want to get involved in initiatives that promote the LGBTQ+ rights and welfare in Mindanao, you may contact Mindanao Pride (MP). Mindanao Pride (MP) is an organization that aims to unite the voices of LGBT groups, LGBT+ rights advocates, and allies in Mindanao. For more information, reach MP on facebook (/mindaprideph) twitter (mindanaopride) and instagram (mindanaopride) or email secretariat@mindanaopride.org.– Rappler.com

Hamilcar Chanjueco Jr is the Founder and President of Mindanao Pride. Ham is a native of Cagayan de Oro and a Development Communication graduate of Xavier University. Hans Madanguit is one of the founding trustees of Mindanao Pride. Ham and Hans are currently affiliated with SPARK! Philippines, an organization that promotes women’s economic empowerment and gender equality, as program manager and campaign manager, respectively.

Isa sa sikat na salita pero di-kilala sa diksiyonaryo ang “mental.” Kung sa Ingles, ito ay isa lamang pang-uri; sa Filipino, ito ay isang pangngalan.

Hindi lamang ito basta may kinalaman o konektado sa isip o pag-iisip kundi sa bahay-kalinga para sa mga baliw. Walang kapagurang biro ang kapag taga-Mandaluyong ka ay tatanungin ka kung sa “loob o sa labas.” 

Pasaring lamang ito sa lugar na kinatatayuan ng National Center for Mental Health (NCMH). 

O mas kilala bilang Mental.

Nagsimula bilang Insular Psychopathic Hospital, ito ay itinayo sa Kalye Nueve de Pebrero, Baryo Mauway, Mandaluyong, sa probinsiya ng Rizal noong Disyembre 17, 1928. Ito ang pinaglipatan ng mga pasyenteng galing sa “Insane Department” ng San Lazaro Hospital noong 1925 at ng City Sanitarium noong 1935.

Kumbaga, noon pa man, problema na rin ang pagdami ng may mga kapansanan sa pag-iisip. Sa kasalukuyan, ang NCMH ay nagsisilbi sa humigit-kumulang 4,000 pasyenteng naka-admit bawat araw at 56,000 konsultasyon kada taon. Ito ay mula sa NCMH lamang.

Ayon 2010 National Census, sa 1.4 milyong Filipinong may kapansanan, 14 porsiyento – o tinatayang 200,000 tao – ang tinatawag na may “mental disability.”

At paparami pa sila nang paparami.

Paano na sila? Silang kung bansagan ay “Abnoy,” “Agooyong,” “Brenda,” “Buang,” “Koala,” “Kulang-kulang,” “Gunggong,” “Luko-luko,” “Lukresia Kasilag,” “Maysayad,” “May Tililing,” “May Topak,” “Praning,” “Retarded,” “Sinto-sinto,” “Siraulo,” “Taong Grasa,” “Timang,” “Wazak,” o iba pang kabilang sa ikatlong pinakakaraniwang kapansanan sa buong bansa?

Sila ba ay ang may sikosis lamang? Kabilang ba rito ang mga nalulong sa alak o droga? Paano ang mga may matinding lungkot at takot? O ang mga nagsasalita nang mag-isa matapos silang salantain ng kalamidad? O ang mga nag-uulyanin? O ang mga bully at binu-bully? O ang mga nang-aabuso at inaabuso? O ang mga naa-adik sa computer games? O social media?

Kung salat na nga ba sila sa buhay, sapat na ba ang batas?

Mga panukala at batas

Marami ang naging pagtatangkang magkaroon ng mga panukalang-batas ukol sa lusog-isip, pero walang nakakapasa sa Senado at Kamara.

Una sa lahat ng panukalang-batas ay ang  ipinasa si Senador Orlando Mercado na Mental Health Act of 1989. Ito sana ang magdedeklara ng isang pambansang patakaran ukol sa lusog-isip, magtatatag ng Board of Mental Health sa Kagawaran ng Kalusugan, at magsasama sa karamdaman sa isip sa saklaw ng Medicare.

Noong 1998, nabuo ang Executive Order 470 na lumikha sa Philippine Council for Mental Health. Diumano, hindi man lamang ito nakapagpulong.

Nagkaroon tayo ng National Mental Health Policy noong 2001 kung kailan ang dating Kalihim ng Kagawaran ng Kalusugan na si Dr. Manuel Dayrit ay bumuo ng maituturing na isang pambansang patakaran para sa lusog-isip.

Magpahanggang isalang ang An Act Establishing A National Mental Health Policy For The Purpose Of Enhancing The Delivery of Integrated Mental Health Services, Promoting And Protecting Persons Utilizing Psychiatric, Neurologic, And Psychosocial Health Services, Appropriating Funds Therefor, And Other Purposes.”

Noong Mayo 2, 2017, nakapasa sa Senado ang Philippine Mental Health Act of 2017 bilangSenate Bill 1354. Tinututukan nito ang pagsasanib sa pangkalahatang  pangangalaga sa kalusugan, kasama ang serbisyong mental, neurolohikal, at sikososyal. Bagamat ang pangunahing awtor nito ay si Senador Risa Hontiveros, na tagapangulo ng komite sa kalusugan sa Senado, kasama niyang nagsulong ng bill sina Senador Loren Legarda, Juan Edgardo Angara, Paolo Benigno Aquino IV, Vicente Sotto III (na ngayon ay Senate President na), Antonio Trillanes IV, at Joel Villanueva.

Maituturing ding kapanalig sa Kamara ng mga Representante sina Teddy Baguilat, Edward Maceda, Pia Cayetano, Karlo Nograles, Romero Quimbo, Chiqui Roa-Puno, Ron Salo, Yul Servo, Tom Villarin, Linabelle Villarica, at Isagani Zarate.

Ngayon, sana makatulong din ito sa tuloy-tuloy na pagiging positibo ng dati-rating negatibong tingin sa mental.

Nitong 21 Hunyo – noong International Day of Yoga mismo – pinirmahan ni President Rodrigo Duterte ang Republic Act 11036, mas kilala bilang Philippine Mental Health Law of 2018, na naglalayong ipagtanggol, itaguyod, at itaas ang antas ng lusog-isip – para mapabuti pa ang pagkakaloob ng kalinga para sa lusog-isip.

Ano ang lusog-isip? 

Teka, ano nga ba itong paulit-ulit na lusog-isip?

Mas kilala sa Ingles bilang “mental health,” ang lusog-isip ay ang estado ng kaginhawahan ng tàong: (a) mulàt sa kaniyang sariling kakayahan, (b) nakakayang harapin ang pangkaraniwang hamon ng buhay, (c) kapaki-pakinabang, at (d) nakakatulong sa pamayanan. 

Ano’t ano man, nariyan pa rin ang suliranin.

Bagamat kinikilala ang malaking papel ng pamahalaan, dapat nating bigyang-diin ang sama-samang tungkulin. Ito ay ang bayanihan ng lahat ng may kinalaman sa pangkalahatang kalusugan ng sambayanan.

Tinatayang may isang psychiatrist lamang sa bawat 200,000 Filipino. Kaya kailangang-kailangan pa rin ang tulong ng mga relihiyoso pati ng mga sikologo at iba pang kung tawagin ay mental health worker.

Halimbawa, noong dumagsa ang mga sakuna, tulad ng Yolanda at iba pa, ipinaloob ng World Health Organization (WHO) at Kagawaran ng Kalusugan ang lusog-isip sa pangunahing pangangailangang pang-kalusugan bilang bahagi ng rehabilitasyon.

Sa pamamagitan ng Mental Health Gap Action Program (mhGAP) na ito, sinanay ang mga doktor, nars, komadrona, at barangay health workers (BHW) na maisulong ang karapatan ng mga may karamdaman sa isip sa pamamagitan ng pagbibigay ng agarang serbisyong pangkalusugan.

Ipinagpapatuloy ito hanggang ngayon. Dahil dito, dumami ang mga doktor mula sa rural health units ang nagkukusang tumingin sa mga problema sa lusog-isip.

Pinalalakas na rin ang sistema upang maging regular ang rasyon ng gamot para sa kanila. Wala na itong ipinagkaiba sa mga suplay ng lunas para sa altapresyon, diabetes, impeksiyon, at iba pang pangkaraniwang sakit.

Pagkilos para sa mental health

Sa kasalukuyan, kaliwa’t kanan ang mga pulong ng iba’t ibang sektor ng lipunan para tiyakin ang tamang pagpapatupad ng naturang RA 11036.

Kasama rin tayo sa labang ito.

Ano’ng magagawa mo?

Simulan natin sa ating sarili.

Kung araw-araw nagagawa nating magsepilyo o magkaroon ng dental hygiene, bakit hindi natin gawin ang ating mental hygiene?

Ito ang agham ng pananatili ng lusog-isip na naging isang interdisiplaryong larangan na yumayakap sa sikolohiya, narsing, gawaing panlipunan, batas, at iba pang propesyon. Kabilang dito ay ang pagkakaroon ng malusog na asal upang maiwasan ang karamdamang mental.

Una, sanaying maging positibo. Matutong magpasalamat.

Ikalawa, kontrolin ang emosyon.Ipahayag ang damdamin mo sa tamang paraan.

Ikatlo, labanan ang istres.Panatilihin ang pangkalahatang kalusugan.

Malalagom natin ang mga prinsipyo ng pagkilos sa tulong ng tatlong T: (a) tuon; (b) tukoy; (c) tugon. 

Tuunan natin ng pansin ang lusog-isip.

Tukuyuin natin ang mga nangangailangan ng tulong.

Tugunan natin ang mga pangangailangan nila.

Upang di-malimutan, mangyaring tandaan ang tulang ito: 

Lusog-isip ay isipin
At pagtuunan ng pansin.
Karamdaman ay tukuyin,
Tugunan ang suliranin!

– Rappler.com 

Ang TOYM Awardee for Literature na si Vim Nadera ay nagtapos ng BS at MA Psychology sa University of Santo Tomas at ng PhD Philippine Studies sa University of the Philippines. Bilang performance art therapist, siya ay nakatulong na sa mga maykanser, may AIDS, nagdodroga, “comfort women,”  batang kalye, inabuso, naipit sa mga kalamidad na likas at likha ng tao, at mga nagdadalamhati. 

If social media during President Duterte's first year was defined by hateful rhetoric online, the second year will be remembered for its cringe-worthy display of incompetence.

Six months ago, we documented a series of slip-ups by agencies and officials of the current administration, who appeared to struggle with a rather steep learning curve when it came to navigating communications on social media.

These days, it seems like social media gaffes and sloppy work have become the distracting norm that can no longer be excused as growing pains for an administration that is about to start its third year in power.

The troubled PCOO

In the month of June alone, the presidential agency mandated to communicate government policies and information to the public has referred to Norway as "Norwegia", the late National Security Adviser Roilo Golez as "Rogelio", and Senator Sherwin Gatchalian as "Winston".

Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO) Undersecretary Lorraine Badoy has responded to the criticism by defending it as a mere typo and by bringing up the issue of the PCOO's budget. (The budget for this year is 4.4% higher than 2017 at P1.38 billion).

But what did we expect from the agency headed by people known for spreading vitriol and disinformation on social media?

Last year, we were taken aback by the government's decision to reward Duterte's most vocal supporters – but not necessarily most responsible – with government positions. Since then, they have become both meme-worthy (Remember Mayon volcano in Naga?) to a source of frustration among taxpayers.

Presidential Spokesperson Harry Roque asked the public to let these things slide.

"Sa akin lang, taong gobyerno lang 'yan. Sana po talaga mas pataasin pa ang kanilang spell-check dahil mayroon namang (Microsoft) Word program na spell-checker," (In my view, they are just government staff. I hope they can improve their spell-check because there is a Microsoft Word program that does spell-checks.)

The statement seems a disservice to public servants, especially what Rappler Thought Leader Sylvia described as "gems in government."

The Code of Conduct and Ethical Standards for Public Officials and Employees also explicitly requires professionalism: "Public officials and employees shall perform and discharge their duties with the highest degree of excellence, professionalism, intelligence and skill. They shall enter public service with utmost devotion and dedication to duty. They shall endeavor to discourage wrong perceptions of their roles as dispensers or peddlers of undue patronage."

Not a victimless crime

While the memes that result from these can be hilarious, the administration's ineptitude on social media is not entirely a victimless crime.

In April, the government's propensity for carelessness online has resulted in serious consequences after a rescue operation in Kuwait was posted by a former consultant of the Department of Foreign Affairs and went viral.

As a result, the Philippine ambassador was summoned then expelled, protest notes were served, and diplomats faced warrants of arrest. (READ: OFW rescue video that angered Kuwait came from DFA)

Of course, majority of these gaffes are minor in scale compared to other more compelling concerns that we currently face as we head into another year of the Duterte presidency.

Some might even say that these are intended to distract the public from real issues such as the health of our democratic institutions, human rights violations, sovereignty, and corruption.

While it's true that these incidents momentarily divert people's attention, they are still worth calling out because they are symptoms of a much bigger problem that's persistent in the other aspects of Duterte's presidency: a culture of incompetence, fueled by hate and excuses, and the cults of personality that propagate them. 

In the end, these incidents are proof of talking big and doing little – a behavior that has no place in government. – Rappler.com

Gaffes and blunders from Year 2 alone:

• Mocha Uson on defensive over misleading Marawi photo from PCOO-managed page
• Mocha Uson shares graphic on Facebook misquoting Trudeau
• ‘Low blow’: Netizens chide DSWD official for calling blogger ‘ugly’
• Genovia and Wakanda, meet Norwegia: Netizens react to latest PCOO flub
• Netizens ask PCOO: Who is 'Rogelio' Golez? Is he from 'Norwegia'?
• Who's 'Winston' Gatchalian? PCOO makes another online blunder

The sari-sari store Joseph* was buying from happened to have a small television flashing a clip of President Rodrigo Duterte calling God stupid. Something about the presidential outburst gnawed at Joseph’s brain until he got home.  

While doing some chores, he remembered another thing that had been bugging him for some time yet remained unacknowledged. 

Only months ago, Joseph could watch 4 hours straight of Duterte’s speeches for enjoyment. He called it “treasure hunting,” waiting for those rare tidbits of presidential words that were positive and uplifting, that erased “all the trash” in the speech.

“I took pride that I could listen to him for that long. Then I realized, I could no longer bear to watch it, even for just one minute,” Joseph told me.

“Maybe that’s how much I’ve changed.”

When that thought struck him, another one quickly followed. 

“'Tangina, critic na ako. Hindi ko na gusto ang ginagawa niya (Son of a bitch, I’m a critic. I no longer like what he’s doing),” Joseph thought to himself.

It was a flash of understanding that came with terrible realizations and a painful coming-to-terms. Joseph did not just vote for Duterte. He was active in his 2016 presidential campaign, volunteering with the campaign’s local chapters in his hometown. 

He wrote effusive Facebook posts about Duterte and even managed to convince many in his community to vote for his candidate. Before Duterte even declared his presidential bid, Joseph was among those voices online urging him to run, believing only the tough-talking Davao City mayor could bring drastic, but positive, change.

“The hardest part is admitting that the man you thought he was is different from  the man he is,” said Joseph.

Slow burn

Like many supporters, Joseph “fell in love” with the image of Duterte the Mayor. His outrageous statements, even his threats to kill, seemed insignificant then, a sideshow that added to Duterte’s mystique. Media never made a big deal out of it then because he was just a mayor.

But what was certain to Joseph was Davao City’s economic growth, its many awards, and what seemed like an enviable peace and order situation.

For this man’s sake, Joseph invested time, effort, and all of his youthful passion to helping Duterte win in his hometown.

In hindsight, Joseph says the "God is stupid" remark was just the tipping point, the culmination of a gradual process of disillusionment.

Joseph found himself making too many concessions for the Chief Executive’s sake. He realized how nonsensical it was for families and friends to endure painful rifts, all for a politician they’ve never even met. 

Then he noticed Duterte was backtracking on certain promises.

“Nagpromise siya na magbebehave siya. Sa akin, very good ‘yun eh (He promised to behave. To me, that was very good)…For the life of me, I can’t accept him as a President, the way he behaves,” said Joseph. (READ: Two years of Duterte: Broken and fulfilled promises)

Duterte also promised not to play the blame game. Hours after election results confirmed he had won the presidency, Duterte said he would begin the “healing,” the setting aside of politics for the loftier goal of nation-building.

“Turns out, the blame game started happening after the economy came into shambles….I’m the type of supporter who remembers what you say,” said Joseph.

He didn’t like how Duterte and his Cabinet members would contradict each other. Ice Seguerra’s resignation as National Youth Commission chairperson, in particular,  was a “red flag” that “struck a nerve,” said Joseph.

It didn’t sit well with him that Malacañang and other supporters kept using Duterte's actions as excuses for his unbecoming words.

“Actions are louder than words but I think words still matter. Words reveal his thoughts, his intentions,” said Joseph. 

And what does he think of Presidential Communications Assistant Secretary Mocha Uson, Duterte’s most vocal online supporter?

“I hate Mocha. I never liked her, her arrogance to call other people bobo (stupid),” said Joseph.

He appreciated where Uson was coming from, being the daughter of a judge shot dead by hitmen, but Joseph did not like how she “tried to be a journalist” and how she turned her blog into a “political tool.”

This growing discomfort with Duterte turned Joseph into a “silent” supporter. He stopped writing long Facebook posts. He grew tired of commenting on “anti” posts. He downgraded himself to being a mere “meme lord,” or someone who shares pro-Duterte memes.

For months, things stayed this way until he came by the news clip of Duterte’s rant about God and the creation story.

Cutting a finger

Having poured so much of himself into supporting Duterte, he spoke with passion about why he thought, back on May 9, 2016, that Duterte was the best choice at the time.

“I was willing to cut my finger so I can save the hand. Mali ba ‘yun (Is that wrong)? I don’t expect a president to be perfect….At the end of the day, everyone who voted made certain concessions,” he said, citing shortcomings of the other candidates that their voters also decided they could live with.

Joseph can’t help but see the elections as a gamble he lost. He wonders if, in an alternate reality where Duterte proved to be a good president, would those who oppose him also swallow their pride and admit they were wrong?

With bitterness, he said he should have second-guessed Duterte more. But his pride kept getting in the way.

He’s frustrated with Duterte’s promises, which he said, are mere “blurts” and not real commitments to pursue planned courses of action.

Rather than subjecting Duterte’s speeches to interpretation, Joseph said: “He’s not a literary project. I have to take his words as they are.”

Shedding labels

After more reflection, Joseph has decided to shed the label of “Duterte supporter” and be a “critic.”

This doesn’t mean he’s thrown his lot with another political party or that he’s “anti-Duterte.”

“I am no longer a supporter. I’m issue-based. I will support good policies,” he said. 

He approves of the newly-signed National Mental Health Act. He doesn’t want Bongbong Marcos back in power. He doesn’t “get” why Duterte is “against” human rights. He doesn't agree with letting China get away with aggressive behavior in the West Philippine Sea.

Joseph may no longer be a supporter, but he’s still for death penalty and he wants the campaign against illegal drugs to continue, but with reforms.

Seeing himself as a critic has given him room to define himself according to his values, and not those of Duterte or of supporters who call themselves “diehard.” 

“I feel at peace with my decision. It’s easier for me to breathe in social media. Some relationships are being mended. There’s a healing process,” said Joseph. 

The greatest danger, he realized, is allowing yourself to get boxed into labels like “pro-Duterte” or “anti-Duterte” because you would be making everything about Duterte and his persona. 

“Do not restrict yourself from changing opinions just because people think you’re DDS or dilawan,” he said.

Above all, Joseph called for understanding, for people to work harder to find a common ground, rather than fight over differences. For him, there are blinders on both the supporters and critics.

“The critics aren’t getting stronger because they fail to acknowledge the merits. Supporters fail to acknowledge the mishaps,” he said. 

The freedom comes from making up his own mind, and not being forced to rationalize Duterte’s actions or statements to fit any pre-determined conclusion. 

At the end of our talk, Joseph declared, “My future opinions will be shaped by future events.” 

Not by a narrative, not by a label, not by any one personality. – Rappler.com

*Not his real name. The interviewee requested for anonymity.

Conventional wisdom holds that China is on the ascent and the United States is in decline, that China’s economy is roaring with raw energy and that Beijing’s “Belt and Road” mega-project of infrastructure building in Central, South, and Southeast Asia is laying the basis for its global economic hegemony.

Some question whether Beijing’s ambitions are sustainable. Inequality in China is approaching that in the United States, which portends rising domestic discontent, while China’s grave environmental problems may pose inexorable limits to its economic expansion.

Perhaps the greatest immediate threat to China’s rise to economic supremacy, however, is the same phenomenon that felled the US economy in 2008 – financialization, the channeling of resources to the financial economy over the real economy. Indeed, there are 3 troubling signs that China is a prime candidate to be the site of the next financial crisis: overheating in its real-estate sector, a roller-coaster stock market, and a rapidly growing shadow-banking sector.

China’s real-estate bubble

There is no doubt that China is already in the midst of a real estate bubble. As in the United States during the subprime-mortgage bubble that culminated in the global financial crisis of 2007-2009, the real-estate market has attracted too many wealthy and middle-class speculators, leading to a frenzy that has seen real estate prices climb sharply.

Chinese real estate prices soared in so-called Tier 1 cities like Beijing and Shanghai from 2015 to 2017, pushing worried authorities there to take measures to pop the bubble. Major cities, including Beijing, imposed various measures: They increased down payment requirements, tightened mortgage restrictions, banned the resale of property for several years, and limited the number of homes that people can buy.

Perhaps the greatest threat to China’s rise is the same phenomenon that felled the US economy in 2008.

However, Chinese authorities face a dilemma. On the one hand, workers complain that the bubble has placed owning and renting apartments beyond their reach, thus fueling social instability. On the other hand, a sharp drop in real-estate prices could bring down the rest of the Chinese economy and – given China’s increasingly central role as a source of international demand – the rest of the global economy along with it. China’s real-estate sector accounts for an estimated 15% of GDP and 20% of the national demand for loans. Thus, according to Chinese banking experts Andrew Sheng and Ng Chow Soon, any slowdown would “adversely affect construction-related industries along the entire supply chain, including steel, cement, and other building materials.”

The Shanghai casino

Financial repression – keeping the interest rates on deposits low to subsidize China’s powerful alliance of export industries and governments in the coastal provinces – has been central in pushing investors into real estate speculation. However, growing uncertainties in that sector have caused many middle class investors to seek higher returns in the country’s poorly regulated stock market. The unfortunate result: A good many Chinese have lost their fortunes as stock prices fluctuated wildly. As early as 2001, Wu Jinglian, widely regarded as one of the country’s leading reform economists, characterized the corruption-ridden Shanghai and Shenzhen stock exchanges as “worse than a casino” in which investors would inevitably lose money over the long run.

At the peak of the Shanghai market, in June 2015, a Bloomberg analyst wrote, “No other stock market has grown as much in dollar terms over a 12-month period,” noting that the previous year’s gain was greater “than the $5 trillion size of Japan’s entire stock market.”

When the Shanghai index plunged 40% later that summer, Chinese investors were hit with huge losses – debt they still grapple with today. Many lost all their savings – a significant personal tragedy (and a looming national crisis) in a country with such a poorly developed social-security system.

Chinese stock markets (now the world’s second-largest, according to The Balance, an online financial journal) stabilized in 2017, and seemed to have recovered the trust of investors when they were struck by contagion from the global sell-off of stocks in February 2018, posting one of their biggest losses since the 2015 collapse.

Shadow banking comes out of the shadows

Another source of financial instability is the virtual monopoly on credit access held by export-oriented industries, state-owned enterprises, and the local governments of favored coastal regions. With the demand for credit from other sectors unmet by the official banking sector, the void has been rapidly filled by so-called shadow banks.

The shadow-banking sector is perhaps best defined as a network of financial intermediaries whose activities and products are outside the formal, government-regulated banking system. Many of the shadow banking system’s transactions are not reflected on the regular balance sheets of the country’s financial institutions. But when a liquidity crisis takes place, the fiction of an independent investment vehicle is ripped apart by creditors who factor these off-balance sheet transactions into their financial assessments of the mother institution.

The shadow banking system in China is not yet as sophisticated as its counterparts on Wall Street and in London, but it is getting there. Ballpark estimates of the trades carried out in China’s shadow banking sector range from $10 trillion to more than $18 trillion.

In 2013, according to one of the more authoritative studies, the scale of shadow banking risk assets – i.e., assets marked by great volatility, like stocks and real estate – came to 53% of China’s GDP. That might appear small when compared with the global average of about 120% of GDP, but the reality is that many of these shadow banking creditors have raised their capital by borrowing from the formal banking sector. These loans are either registered on the books or “hidden” in special off-balance-sheet vehicles. Should a shadow banking crisis ensue, it is estimated that up to half of the nonperforming loans of the shadow banking sector could be “transferred” to the formal banking sector, thus undermining it as well. In addition, the shadow banking sector is heavily invested in real estate trusts. Thus, a sharp drop in property valuations would immediately have a negative impact on the shadow banking sector – creditors would be left running after bankrupt developers or holding massively depreciated real estate as collateral.

Is China, in fact, still distant from a Lehman Brothers–style crisis? Interestingly, Sheng and Ng point out that while “China’s shadow banking problem is still manageable…time is of the essence and a comprehensive policy package is urgently needed to preempt any escalation of shadow banking NPLs [nonperforming loans], which could have contagion effects.” Beijing is now cracking down on the shadow banks, but these are elusive entities.

Finance is the Achilles’ heel of the Chinese economy. The negative synergy between an overheating real estate sector, a volatile stock market, and an uncontrolled shadow banking system could well be the cause of the next big crisis to hit the global economy, rivaling the severity of the Asian financial crisis of 1997-98 and the global financial implosion of 2008–09.

Instead of war…

Rather than gearing up for a military face-off in the South China Sea or engaging in a trade war (which no one will win), the United States and China might be better advised to prepare for the threat that the economic vulnerabilities of both China and the US pose to the global economy.

Global financial reform – a task urgently needed (but never undertaken) after the 2008 financial crisis – is one area where cooperation would immeasurably benefit China, the United States, and the rest of the planet. The loss of $5.2 trillion during this February’s global financial meltdown has highlighted the necessity of putting stronger restrictions on the global movement of speculative capital before it spawns a bigger crisis in the real economy. The regulation of dangerous real estate-backed securities and derivatives – the same types of instruments that triggered the 2008 financial crisis, and which are now making their appearance in Asian markets – should be a top priority.

When it comes to trade, there are far better strategies than a trade war for the US and China to resolve their differences.  It is true that the export of jobs to China by US corporations, supported by free trade and globalization enthusiasts in government, has been a major cause of the deindustrialization of significant parts of the United States, but the solutions lie in building bridges, not walls.

First, formal or informal trade agreements need to be worked out to limit select industrial exports to the United States, much like the Reagan-era arrangements with Japan to limit automobile exports bought time for the US car industry to retool and recover. Second, the US needs an industrial policy, drawing from the current playbook of Germany and China, in which an activist state channels private and public investment and promotes job creation in cutting-edge industries, such as renewable energy-based infrastructure and transportation. 

None of this is as simple – or as foolish – as a military face-off near the Chinese coast. Too often, for America’s national security managers, the US military is a hammer, and every problem looks like a nail. China, for its part, tends to ride roughshod over the rights of its neighbors like the Philippines and Vietnam in its push to construct a defensive perimeter in the Western Pacific to counter US power projection. Both Washington and Beijing would do far better by standing down, understanding the stake that the United States and the rest of the world now have in a healthy Chinese economy, and worrying more about avoiding its economic implosion than about planning for a military explosion. – Rappler.com

*Rappler commentator Walden Bello is the International Adjunct Professor in sociology at the State University of New York at Binghamton and the author of 21 books, including the soon-to-be-published The Fall of China?: Preventing the Next Crash. The original version of this article came out in The Nation, which gave Rappler permission to reproduce it.

(This is the valedictory address of Ralph Jervis M. Bangan during the commencement exercises of the Far Eastern University on Tuesday, June 26.)

As a child, I admired people with great intellectual capacity. I was so obsessed with the idea of becoming like my relatives and classmates who excelled in academics.

After every quarter when I was in elementary and high school, I listed names of honor students, arranged according to rank. But here is the catch: I was on top of that fictional record, which allowed me to become our batch's first honor – at least in my imagination. I did this to satisfy one of my daydream-binges: that is, to build a character that was identical to the people I admired.

I carried this with me until I entered FEU when I was 16. I was a small-time probinsyano who was constantly in need of family support. I must say that the start was so difficult because I had to be accustomed to what they call the "Manila life," a life of combined liberty and danger. (READ: Be brave, be great, and be good: A valedictory address)

Everything was a culture shock for me. I was not used to how things worked in Manila; the dirt, the noise, the bad smell, and the heavy traffic were just too much for a probinsyano to bear. Each passing day seemed like torture. I longed for my family, for my friends, and for the humble town that shaped my identity. I felt isolated. I endured a suffering that was fairly greater than academic breakdowns.

Loneliness was just so powerful. It made me ask myself: why am I doing this? Is this even worth it? Am I capable of becoming like my relatives and classmates whom I admired? I was about to lose hope, but FEU was there to provide me a shelter. It became my new home, along with all of you, my fellow graduates.

I believe I speak on behalf of everyone when I say that FEU opened an avenue for us to experience and to learn a whole lot of new things.

Aside from eye bags, sleepless nights, anxieties, dreadful exams, and countless sabaw moments, FEU gave us friends who come from different circumstances. It made us value the importance of diversity. It had been – and will always be – a constant reminder that living with integrity gives us honor; that optimism builds fortitude; that effort helps us reap excellence; and, that doing good is worthy and it makes us upright. (READ: Words of wisdom: 7 memorable grad speeches)

But more than this, FEU offered a safe space that allowed us to explore our capabilities based on what or how we feel about ourselves. It became an area where we can genuinely express who we are without thinking of what other people might say.

FEU presented itself as a sanctuary of free-expression. It showed us that our circumstances do not matter because there will always be a haven – whether a family, a friend, or an institution – that is there to embrace us completely.

It was during my college journey that I fully accepted who I really am: isang mataba at maingay na bakla na kaya rin palang tumayo sa sarili niyang paa; na kaya rin palang maging siya at totoo sa sarili niya.

Ultimately, FEU showed us that we are not capable of becoming like the people we look up to. Instead, life in FEU gave us our greatest challenge – and that is to become our own best version… to accept ourselves completely. We have our own identity that is distinct from others. Now, I do not need to put my name on top of a fictional record to be a copycat of my relatives and former classmates who excelled in academics. FEU already did it for me.

We could turn our imagination… our fiction… into reality. We just have to overcome our personal struggles and learn how to accept our identity, because by doing these, we become happy. And by being happy, we get to inspire others. And by inspiring others, we create a bigger and a brighter future for ourselves, for our families, for our friends, and of course, for our nation. (READ: Antonio Carpio NCPAG 2018 graduation speech)

We must keep in mind that doing good to others is not an act of kaplastikan or pagpapakitang-tao; that siding with the truth makes us neither Dilawan nor ka-DDS; that expressing ourselves based on our sexual orientation and gender identity is not a sin and is not an act of kalandian; that dressing simply or choosing budget meals does not make us mahirap, hampas-lupa, or promdi.

Our identity should be anchored on who we really are and on what we believe in; it should not be grounded on what society expects us to be. We are a Wonderwoman, a Superman, a Darna, or a Cardo Dalisay of our own making. Yes, we have countless challenges and struggles, but as quintessential heroes, we can end up winning against our adversaries. Our FEU journey taught us to be brave – to keep moving forward courageously without forgetting who we are. We must show that Tamaraws are like unicorns – we have horns but we can also have wings.

At this point, my fellow graduates, it is important to recognize the people who helped us surmount our struggles and who supported us to become who we are today.

To our parents and family: thank you for being there when we almost gave up. Thank you for reminding us to do our best when we said na "di na namin kaya." Thank you for offering us love, comfort, and care.

To FEU and to our dear faculty members: thank you for teaching us beyond what we should know. We were able to discover ourselves because of all of you!

To our treasured friends and batchmates: thank you for the 4 long years of friendship and love. May we always remember to dream, believe, survive. Starstruck!

Again, good morning, and congratulations to everyone! – Rappler.com

Ralph Jervis M. Bangan graduated summa cum laude in Bachelor of Arts in International Studies and one of 5 valedictorians of Far Eastern University (FEU) Class 2018.

Rodrigo Duterte’s anti-drug campaign has not only left a bloody trail of over 4,000 dead bodies. Also left are over 4,000 families bearing the brunt of a one-sided war. 

For the past 5 months, I have been talking to mothers, widows, and sisters of men who have been shot dead by motorcycle-riding gun men or cops in police operations. I talked to my respondents in their homes, most of which are made of corrugated sheets and recycled wood. In the vicinity is a police station which holds the record of the highest number of drug-related deaths.  

In the course of my research, I have listened to stories of loss – of fallen fathers, uncles, brothers, and husbands. Most are breadwinners who made the difference on whether a family can get by or not, with their meagre earnings.

Nonetheless, it is clear that in the aftermath of violent deaths, women rise up and take the reins. They have not only been left behind by their loved ones, they have also been abandoned by a society that has seemingly turned a blind eye on their grief. 

I met Kristina, a 26-year-old mother of 5 who lost her partner of 10 years after he was shot in a junkshop a few houses from their home along with two of his co-workers.

Hours later, his body was taken to the local morgue where Kristina claimed it in exchange for a signed document that indicated she owed them money. Kristina could not afford a burial. “Kahit piso, wala kami...” Kristina said (We have nothing, not even a peso). For almost a month, she left her children to look after their father’s casket while she begged for donations. The stench of the body called the attention of a local parish who helped Kristina give her husband a proper interment. 

I also met Socorro, an elderly woman who should have long retired from work especially after surviving 3 strokes.

She was left with little choice but to look after her grandchildren – all 7 of them. Socorro remembers the night when she pleaded to the police not to enter their home. She lost her son that evening. Her son was told to kneel on the ground before he was gunned down. Her eldest granddaughter witnessed her father’s execution.

Three months before that dreadful day, Socorro’s heavily pregnant daughter-in-law was arrested without warrant during police operations. She gave birth to her 7th child in jail whom Socorro now cares for.

Today, Socorro spends her days either selling vegetables along the sidewalk or moonlighting as a laundrywoman. Despite her old age, she takes precarious jobs in the hopes of bringing home enough money to feed her grandchildren. “Makalaya lang ang manugang ko, kahit na mamatay na ako, [kahit] patayin na ako ni Duterte” she said repeatedly when we talked. (I just want my parents freed, even if that's at the risk of my own life, even if Duterte kills me.)

At 17, Rose suddenly became the eldest member of her family.

Her parents and her eldest brother have been jailed for drug-related charges. Her other brother, the one who had a steady job as a garbage collector and stayed away from drugs, was shot in their house by unidentified men. It was this brother that looked after her and their youngest sibling. Upon his death, Rose was left helpless, unprepared to enter the workforce as she only completed seventh grade. Her family’s alleged notorious involvement in the drug trade turned her into a pariah even in her extended family. They feared her brother’s killers would return to wreak more havoc.

Rose and her younger brother were even forced to move out of their family home because they shared that fear. When I asked why they left their home, her response was simple: “Pag hindi daw po nila nakuha yung tatay ko, mga anak niya raw po yung papatayin” (If they fail to get my father, they said they would run after the children.) And so, Rose, before her 18th birthday, married a man who worked as porter in a nearby hardware store. The last time we spoke, she was looking forward to her debut. 

Unheard narratives

These stories, among others, are the unheard narratives of the drug war.

They are stories of invisible suffering—those that take place behind the scenes because grieving publicly lends them vulnerable to condemnation. These are stories of the voiceless, for how can one speak up if suspected killers lurk around their homes, and if your neighbors and relatives turn you away due to fear. How can one grieve properly, if earning a living becomes priority over mourning? 

But these are also stories of survival and hope, inasmuch as these are of grief and despair. 

Most of all, they are about women boldly taking control of their future despite uncertainties and the most dismal circumstances. They take over because they have no choice. But they also take over because it is the only way they can get their lives together.

These women and their families need not be left in the dark for too long. They need a safe space to tell their stories because their dead kin never stood a chance. 

We must help them so that they stop suffering society’s indictment of itself. – Rappler.com

Bianca Ysabelle Franco is a Research Associate at the Development Studies Program of the Ateneo de Manila University. Real names of the respondents are withheld for privacy and anonymity.