The Commission on Electons (Comelec) is a strange constitutional creature. Unlike in most jurisdictions where the sole function of election management bodies is to administer elections, Comelec was created with two clashing heads. It is not only an election administrator, it is also a quasi-court, hearing and deciding pre- and post-election cases.

Under present laws, the Comelec has exclusive jurisdiction over all pre-election cases, like petitions to deny due course and disqualification complaints involving candidates of all levels. Through these two petitions, Comelec can remove any candidate and abort their electoral prospects without the benefit of a full trial or an election. This was the power it carelessly exercised in 2016 by removing then-frontrunner Grace Poe from the list of candidates for president at the height of the campaign. Only the Supreme Court’s judicious intervention stopped it. The controversy nonetheless seriously hurt Poe’s chances at the polls. 

After elections, under the Article IX.C Section 2.2 of the 1987 Constitution, the poll body has jurisdiction over election protests and quo warranto cases of all elective regional officials of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao, provinces, and cities. It also has appellate jurisdiction over all contests involving elective municipal officials decided by Regional Trial Courts (RTCs), or involving elective barangay officials decided by Municipal or Metropolitan Trial Courts (MTC/MCTC). It also now has shared jurisdiction with regular prosecutory arms of government in prosecuting election cases.

Comelec’s split personality presents a lot of complications. 

Conflict of interest

There's an inherent conflict of interest when it is both an election administrator and an election judge. When someone protests the results of an election, his natural position is to assail the integrity of the election, to allege fraud and all of forms of cheatings. How does he expect to be sustained by the very administrator of that election? Sustaining him would mean admitting failure on the part of the administrator.

This is made more complicated with the automation of the elections, where the most grounds for protests are intimately tied with the automated system’s software integrity, which is directly attributable to Comelec. The Comelec cannot be expected to make a decision against its interests; it is naturally positioned to defend the integrity of its own system.

In fusing election administration and adjudication in one body, there is no inherent check and balance. Thus, here, winning a protest is an uphill battle for those who question the elections. 

Second, the administration of election per se is a very jealous and complicated job. It demands the agency’s undivided attention. 

Our regular elections are the country’s biggest synchronized nationwide activity administered by the government. It takes massive and long-term preparation to make sure that around 55 million voters get to vote within the 10-12-hour period in the 90,000 precincts across the 7,000 islands of the country. This is the reason preparations have to start as early as two years before the scheduled election. During that period, the commission en banc would need to decide even the minutest concerns.

Around the same time when election preparations peak, specifically after the filing of certificates of candidacies, nearly 1,000 cases from across the archipelago flood the Comelec’s headquarters in Manila. Aside from the volume of complaints, there are political pressure to resolve these cases in time for the printing of ballots or election day itself.   

With these two kinds of concerns to attend to at the same time, it is physically impossible for the 7-member Comelec en banc to pay these matters the attention they require. Oftentimes, the quasi-judicial work takes a back seat, as making sure that the election takes place remains the higher priority at the end of the day.

After the elections, hundreds and hundreds of election protests and quo warranto now go up to Comelec’s main office and few months after appeal from local cases from all over of the Philippines. With these compunding tasks, many of these cases remain unresolved even as the new election cycle comes in.

Strange fusion of powers 

This strange fusion of powers vested in the Comelec was not original to the 1987 Constitution. This was first conceived in Marcos’ 1973 Constitution – the first time the Comelec was given the power to resolve election cases, concurrent with its duty to administer elections. It made the Comelec the “sole judge of all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of all Members of the National Assembly and elective provincial and city officials.”

This was an abandonment of the earlier provision in the 1935 Constitution that limited Comelec’s adjudicatory power to “all administrative questions affecting elections, including the determination of the number and location of polling places, and the appointment of election inspectors and of other election officials.” From a purely election-administering body in 1935, the Comelec became a quasi-court in 1973. Its powers was further broadened in the 1987 Constitution.

The draft constitution proposed by the Presidential Consultative Committee seeks to bring back the original 1935 setup, stripping Comelec some of its quasi-judicial function and putting more emphasis on its election-administering function. 

It proposes the creation of a “Federal Electoral Court,” composed of a chief justice and 14 associate justices, which shall have the jurisdiction over contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of the president, vice president, and members of both houses of Congress. With this major overhaul, the Presidential Election Tribunal (PET), the Senate Electoral Tribunal (SET), and the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal (HRET) will all be collapsed, and their functions will be absorbed by the Federal Electoral Court.

The Federal Electoral Court will also have the power to review, on appeal or certiorari, all decisions, resolutions, and orders of “trial courts of proper jurisdiction in all contests relating to the elections, returns, and qualifications of other elective regional, provincial, city, municipal, and barangay officials…” This would mean the powers of the present Comelec to hear and decide questions on the elections and qualifications of local officials be transferred back to the judiciary. 

It also has review powers over the decisions, resolutions, and orders of the Commission on Elections with respect to “all questions affecting elections, including the qualifications of candidates and political parties, and other pre-election controversies, and the conduct of plebiscites and referenda.”

Interestingly, it implies that the Comelec gets to retain powers to decide pre-election controversies, which is understandably administrative in character. However, the phrase “questions affecting elections, including the qualifications of candidates and political parties” needs further clarification. As of now, qualifications of candidates may only be questioned after elections, through an appropriate quo warranto proceeding, which is rather judicial in character. 

The proposed appointment scheme also significantly tempers the discretion of the president to appoint the members of the election court. He can only appoint the chief justice and 4 associate justices of the Federal Electoral Court. The 5 other associate justices will have to be appointed by the Commission on Appointments, and the remaining 5 by the Federal Constitutional Court sitting en banc. Their appointments will not require confirmation, to do away with the current shameless practice of Commission on Appointments members trading favorable rulings on election cases with confirmation votes for the appointees.

The proposed constitution requires each member of the Federal Electoral Court to be an “election law expert.” This is understandable, knowing that this is a specialized adjudication, requiring very specific legal knowledge and experience.

However, counter-intuitive is raising the age of qualification to 50, from the present age of 35 required of Comelec commissioners. We must note that election litigation in the age of automated elections is significantly different than in manual elections. Proper adjudication of these cases would not only require knowledge of election law, but solid foundation in information and communication technology. To increase the age requirement would only weed out a lot of younger qualified individuals, in exchange for more senior lawyers who cannot even send an email or, worse, cannot be expected to understand the complicated ICT infrastructure of an automated election. 

This proposed major restructuring of the Comelec, one of its key departments handling election contests and appeals, the Election Contest and Adjudcation (ECAD), for example, will become functus officio. At the same time, this will be a good opportunity for Comelec to pursue structural reform, particularly to expand its existing Information Technology Department (ITD), which is currently undermanned.

Overall, removing the adjudicatory functions of the Comelec would seem a step in the right direction. Most noted election lawyers, including former Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes Jr, have been advocating for this reform for the longest time.

However, I suggest that the Comelec be fully unburdened of adjudicatory distractions. Even the handling of pre-election cases should be taken from the poll body, since they are always filed at the height of election preparations; this function should be transferred to the Federal Electoral Court as well. This will also disabuse us of the notion that only lawyers should be appointed there. Instead, experienced project managers should be placed there – theirs is a more relevant skill when it comes to election management. – Rappler.com 

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

Across the Indo-Pacific, rising economic dependence has enabled Beijing to revise the nature of international relations and a rules-based order underpinned by adherence to international treaty-based law. The rapidity of the associated shift in the balance of political and military power was also enabled by America's neglect of the region following its war on terror and then the 2007-08 global financial Crisis.

Despite the implicit acknowledgement of this through the United States’ "pivot" and later "rebalance," this "reengagement" was undermined by the Obama administration’s pacifism with China and then President Trump’s election. The results include the consolidation of revisionist policies in breach of international law, unchecked coercion against other regional states, and reduced confidence in the US security umbrella. To this end, the rules-based order has gradually eroded, and a more anarchical and militaristic environment is filling the void.

Beijing’s rising assertiveness

The collapsing regional order might start with the war on terror but contending Asian perspectives regarding China and the US have become increasingly polarized since the 2007-2008 financial crisis. Beijing’s early "charm offensive" has since been supplanted by more coercive actions and the most divisive issue, at least for East Asia, has been the territorial disputes in the South China Sea.

Despite ASEAN’s engagement since 1992, China has most significantly breached the norms of the 2002 ASEAN Declaration on the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea (DOC) and then it also breached the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS) through activities like the creation and militarization of large-scale artificial islands.

Regionally, China’s 2012 seizure of Scarborough Shoal from Manila was a "watershed event." The Obama administration’s attempt to negotiate a withdrawal by Beijing and Manila from the shoal failed. However, the ultimate pivot point was Beijing’s rapid construction of nearly 1,300 hectares of artificial islands from early 2013.

Despite the first reference to possible land reclamation by a Philippine news article on July 31, 2013, comprehensive imagery of the artificial islands was not publicly available until February 2015. By this time, the US and its allies had, intentionally or not, bypassed international pressure to prevent the island construction – e.g. a naval blockade – as the substance of the island construction was by then a fait accompli.

Containment or enablement?

The Chinese government and its state-owned media claim that Beijing is a victim of unjustified containment policies by the US and its allies. They point to developments like the stationing of marines in Darwin and then US Freedom of Navigation Operations (FONOPs) in the South China Sea. However, there has been very little tangible "containment" of Beijing’s behavior.

For some Asian nations, the failure of the international community to take decisive action to deter Beijing’s flagrant breaches of international law and the "rules-based order" was even more noteworthy than Beijing’s actual breach of UNCLOS.

Consequently, in March 2018 Vietnam abandoned its "Red Emperor" oil site when Beijing threatened to attack Vietnam’s Spratly outposts. Vietnam had initially postponed drilling there but, despite a US Navy carrier port visit a week earlier, Hanoi felt that it had to capitulate to Beijing’s demands. The possible loss of the South China Sea – "in all scenarios short of war" – for all relevant stakeholders has been reflected in public statements from past and present senior US and Australian military officers.

Consolidating resistance or capitulation?

Earlier in 2017, China’s provocations forced a toughening of the Australian and Indian positions. For example, at the June 2017 Shangri-La Dialogue (SLD), Australian Prime Minister Malcolm Turnbull stated that the region must preserve the "rules-based structure" and "[t]his means cooperation, not…winning through corruption, interference or coercion." In India’s case, the author was resident in New Delhi a week later and during the unfolding of the Doklam standoff where India’s stance on China toughened weekly.

Consequently, in late 2017 India, Australia, Japan, and the US agreed to resurrect the former Quadrilateral Security Dialogue ("Quad 2.0"); the first iteration of this dialogue collapsed in 2008 when Australia withdrew from the associated Malabar Exercises following Chinese pressure. The first Quad 2.0 Senior Officials Meeting was held in November 2017 and discussions included the maintenance of the "rules-based order," "maritime security," and "freedom of navigation and overflight." However, there was insufficient agreement on key issues for a joint communiqué.

Problematically, in 2018, mixed signals emerged about the level of commitment to the Quad and resistance to Beijing’s transgressions. In April 2018, Prime Minister Modi held a summit with President Xi Jinping followed by, two weeks later, a trilateral summit between the leaders of Japan and South Korea and China’s Premier Li Keqiang. Both summits invoked noticeably warmer language and the Chinese state media declared the latter to have "…brought the estranged relations between China and Japan back onto the right track."

In the absence of Washington’s economic leadership by abandoning its Trans-Pacific Partnership (a free trade area covering 40% of global GDP) China, Japan, and South Korea sped up negotiations for another major FTA that excludes the US – the Regional Comprehensive Economic Partnership (RCEP).

Currently, there is much debate over the utility and future of the Quad, but absent significant US leadership and/or an international "shock" to fuse the 4 countries together, the Quad will not tangibly affect the costs/benefits analysis of Beijing. For example, during the week of the India-China Summit, New Delhi again rejected Canberra’s request to rejoin the Malabar Exercises as an observer.

Meanwhile, regional confidence in the US has been further undermined by the Obama administration’s reduction of the Southeast Asian security assistance budget by 19% (2010-2015) and President Trump’s stated 2018 intention to reduce the overall budget by a further 24.4%.

Post-World War II order collapsing?

China has demonstrated a profound capacity to reinvent itself domestically and internationally and the achievements of the past few decades, for such a populous country, are unprecedented. So too is Beijing’s challenge to the regional order including US leadership, norms, and international law. Based on the current trajectory, Asia’s Post-World War II order is on the verge of a terminal decline.

Aside from missing US leadership, the broader hesitance of the region to respond to regional threats is profoundly destabilizing; this will not change unless a far more harmonized view emerges about the key threats confronting a stable rules-based order. Meanwhile, a potential trade war will undermine the liberal-economic order and destabilise the region further.

Assessments that the South China Sea is in fact lost to Beijing are debatable; they assume no significant shift in regional approaches on the issue. However, if the region fiercely worked together to change Beijing’s costs/benefits analysis, then positive change can happen. To this end, the South China Sea needs a meaningful Code of Conduct but ASEAN’s capacity to negotiate this is questionable.

What can be done?

A subgroup of willing ASEAN states may need to negotiate the Code or key ASEAN claimants could alternatively forge a Code of Conduct with key non-ASEAN stakeholder countries and present it as a fait accompli to Beijing. Much more is needed including multinational FONOPs and coast guard patrols. The multinational coast guard patrols could police and protect resources in the "legally" undisputed areas of a willing state’s EEZ.

These activities can also apply across the Indo-Pacific. For this purpose, a strategic dialogue between supporters of the rules-based order is needed. Whether led by governments or by regional think tanks at a Track 1.5 level (as a first step), such a dialogue could help coordinate multilateral activities and be a platform for more robust signalling to Beijing.

Further, a mutual defense pact will ultimately be needed to guarantee collective responses to military attempts to change the status quo in the East China Sea, Taiwan, the North Natuna Sea, and India’s border.

The South China Sea (and Crimean) precedent will further embolden revisionist states to undertake additional coercive actions when diplomacy fails. The region cannot expect the US to defend Asia on its own; should the rules-based states of the Indo-Pacific act together then that may also entice the US to more substantially and constructively reengage the region. A failure on either front will signal to Beijing that it will benefit from future coercive and/or military actions in other regional arenas. – Rappler.com

This first appeared in RSIS Commentary.

Christopher Roberts is director of the National Asian Studies Centre (NASC), Institute for Governance and Policy Analysis, University of Canberra. He has been associated with RSIS since 2005 where, among other things, he completed a post-doctoral fellowship (2007-2008).

I have tried to refrain from commenting on social media on what's happening in Boracay. Insofar as I'm concerned, I am not actually affected since I am not doing business on the island and the absence of tourists does not bother me. I have, in fact, put up a sign outside my home offering free legal services for the duration of the closure, in case indigent residents have need of it. 

However, as always, it is the small people who are bearing the brunt of the island's closure and not the big businessmen who can very well weather the storm. This is what pains me most. It also hurts when I hear statements from well-meaning friends and acquaintances to the effect that the closure is necessary and "everybody has to sacrifice" to clean up the island. For the life of me, I do not understand what these non-residents have sacrificed.

Hopefully, this statement will help people in the rest of the country understand what's happening on the island.

After securing the go signal of my daughters and their mom, here's my personal take on the matter.

1. Unlawful taking/destruction of properties 

Several establishment owners were told to remove their structures for allegedly violating certain easements. Please note that, for those who have valid titles or other rights over property, there are legal processes that must be complied with prior to the taking of property. These ownership and/or possessory rights antedated the municipal ordinances imposing the 25+5-meter easement from the high-water mark and the 12-meter road widening easement. Summarily destroying and/or taking these properties is a violation of the constitutional rights to due process and just compensation (Sections 1 and 9, Bill of Rights). At this point, it may not be amiss to note that these easements were imposed by a municipal ordinance and I am not aware of any scientific basis for these. For instance, the Water Code only requires a 3-meter easement from the shore for urban areas.

2. Declaration of state of calamity  

The term "state of calamity" is defined by Republic Act (RA) 10121 as "a condition involving mass casualty and/or major damages to property, disruption of means of livelihoods, roads, and normal way of life of people in the affected areas as a result of the occurrence of natural or human-induced hazard." In the case of Boracay, these conditions are not present. Moreover, even granting arguendo that these conditions exist, impairment of the liberty of abode and right to travel (not to mention impairment of the rights to due process and just compensation) is not a consequence of the declaration of a state of calamity. The purpose of the declaration of a state of calamity is to assist the affected communities and alleviate their suffering. It is not meant to serve as a cloak of immunity to rationalize or justify wide scale violations of human rights.

And even if there was a factual basis to impose a state of calamity, the constitution states that liberty of abode shall not be impaired "except upon lawful order of the court" (Section 6, Bill of Rights). Neither may the right to travel "be impaired except in the interest of national security, public safety, or public health, as may be provided by law" (ibid). The government cannot possibly use public health or public safety as a ground for the impairment of these rights since residents are still allowed to stay on the island. If the conditions on the island are not "safe" or "healthy," everybody should be evacuated.

3. Boracay Inter-Agency Task Force – Executive Order (EO) 53

EO 53 created the Boracay Inter-Agency (IA) Task Force (the "Task Force") to implement existing laws, rules and regulations and to recommend changes to existing laws. However, the Task Force has clearly exceeded its mandate. For instance:

a. imposition of curfew 

Residents of the island are not allowed to enter the island between 10 pm and 6 am. In effect a curfew has been imposed on the island. This is worse than the situation in Mindanao, which is under martial law.

There is also the case of the recent refusal of the port authorities to allow bearers of Barangay Yapak IDs from going back to their homes on the island. Men, women, children, and elderly people were unable to go home and had to sleep in the port while waiting for permission to go home. This lasted for several days and no cogent reason has been given to justify this indiscriminate mass disenfranchisement of a whole barangay. 

While only tourists were barred by the President from entering the island, the implementing authorities have issued orders and regulations unrelated to the "state of calamity" and beyond the scope of the power delegated to them.

b. prohibition on swimming and water sports  

In addition to the curfew, residents may only swim in designated areas and, even then, only until 5 pm. I am at a loss as to the reason for this requirement. Are we so physically dirty that swimming after 5 pm will cause environmental damage to the island? Do we relieve ourselves in the water after 5 pm?

c. requirement for Sewage Treatment Plants – Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) Memorandum Circular (MC) 2018-07 

The IA Task Force is now requiring all establishments on the beach with more than 49 rooms to build their own sewage treatment plants (STPs). This requirement has absolutely no legal basis. The only legal requirement under the implementing rules of the Clean Water Act is for households and establishments to connect to existing sewerage systems, not install their own STPs. Worse, requiring establishments to install and operate their own STPs is not only expensive. It also goes against existing engineering and environmental best practices worldwide. In fact, this requirement does not exist anywhere else in the country.

The added requirement for those with less than 50 rooms (including small stores and restaurants) to pool their resources is much worse. It is, to say the least, impractical to expect several establishments to agree on building and operating a common STP. In the first place, it would be very difficult to agree on whose property the STP will be located (some of these establishments have a floor area of less than 30 square meters). More importantly, these establishments have neither the financial wherewithal (a STP costs roughly P2 million) nor the technical capacity to operate a STP.

It should therefore be enough for these establishments to connect to the nearest existing sewerage line as required by the Clean Water Act. And if there is no existing sewerage line, it is the government's duty to provide one to its taxpayers.

While Boracay Water Island Company (BWIC) and Boracay Tubi Systems Inc (BTSI) offer to shoulder all or part of the cost of building these private STPs, this comes at a cost. Establishments who avail of this offer must agree to exclusively source their water supply for years from the concessionaire which installs the STP. This deprives them of their freedom to source their water from the supplier of their choice.

Sadly, the DENR is using this requirement as a Damocletian sword (blackmail in less polite terms) against the whole island. In his 23 June 2018 letter to Boracay stakeholders informing them of the STP requirement, Attorney Pascua of the DENR ended by saying: "NO SEWERAGE TREATMENT PLANT, NO OPENING." This despite the lack of legal basis and the violation of the constitutional right to equal protection (see pararagraph 4 below)

d. displacement of workers 

The closure of the island also displaced thousands of workers who are in no way responsible for the conditions on the island. They are merely trying to earn a living. However, in implementing the "state of calamity," workers (who are obviously not tourists) are unable to go to work on the island. And even those who have valid barangay IDs are proscribed from going to the island from 6 pm to 6 am.

4. Equal protection of the law – Section 1 of the Bill of Rights 

Laws should apply equally to everyone similarly situated. If the rationale for the declaration of a state of calamity is that Boracay "is a cesspool," this same rationale applies to other areas in the country which are as dirty or dirtier than Boracay. For instance, this applies to all communities on the shores of Manila Bay and the Pasig River, if not more so. In fact, there is an existing Supreme Court order for the government to clean up and rehabilitate Manila Bay which, to date, has not been implemented. The government should prioritize this instead of focusing on Boracay.

While the Boracay community supports the cleanup and rehabilitation of Boracay, the heavy-handed approach by government is not commensurate to the problem. In the first place, the sorry state of Boracay is due to the failure of the Tourism Infrastructure and Economic Zone Authority (TIEZA) to provide adequate sewerage infrastructure and services. This cannot be overemphasized. TIEZA and its predecessor, PTA, is responsible for this mess. This is a failure of the national government, not the local government. It is quite unfair, to say the least, to punish all the residents of the island indiscriminately for this failure of governance.

More importantly, prior to the closure of the island, DENR already had a list of violators who were not properly connected to the sewerage system. Under Section 8.2 of the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) of the Clean Water Act (in connection with Section 29 of Presidential Decree or PD 198), these establishments may be deprived of all services, including supply of water, after 10 days' prior written notice. Without any water supply, these violators will have no sewage or wastewater to discharge. This would have driven down the coliform level drastically. This is infinitely much better than penalizing the whole island, guilty and innocent alike. Instead, the Task Force chose to prioritize the "rights" of these violators over the rights of innocent residents and business owners and recommended the closure of the island.

In closing, it should again be emphasized that it is not the big business owners that bear the brunt of the negative effects of the island's closure. It is the regular employees, masseurs, boatmen, tricycle drivers, and the like who are suffering immensely. The enrollment rate is down drastically since these people have to prioritize food over education. These people cannot restructure their loans. In fact, they have no access to the banking system. Their only recourse is to buy rice, sardines, and instant noodles from the neighborhood sari-sari store on credit. And after several months, even these small stores have run out of supplies. These people are now starving!

I hope this leads to a more informed conversation on the sorry state of the island of Boracay. And please bear in mind that, if this can be done to our island, it can also be done to your community. – Rappler.com

Butch Sebastian is a retired lawyer, a nature advocate, and an outdoor enthusiast. This article originally appeared on his Facebook page, and Rappler is republishing it with his permission.

Araw- araw bumabiyahe si Angel mula Commonwealth sa Old Balara, Quezon City, papuntang trabaho niya sa Ayala Avenue. Nagta-tricycle siya palabas ng village nang alas-singko kuwarenta y singko, makikipag-agawan sa jeep, pagkatapos ay pupungas-pungas na pipila sa MRT sa Quezon Avenue. Tumatagal nang 45 minuto hanggang isang oras at 15 minuto ang pila sa MRT, hanggang sa makasakay sa couch na di mahulugan ng karayom sa siksikan. Sa loob ng 35 minutes, nakakarating siya sa Makati.

Daily torture

Ang suma, nasa dalawang oras at 50 minuto ang biyahe ni Angel. 'Pag sinusuwerte, dalawang hanggang dalawa't kalahating oras. 'Pag minamalas, pati cellphone niya nai-snatch, nahihipuan siya ng manyak, at natatapakan ang hinlalaki niya, bukod pa sa mabaho na siya pagdating ng opisina. Minsan tumitirik pa ang MRT kaya’t naglalakad siya sa graba nang nakatakong patungo sa susunod na istasyon.

Nang na-promote is Angel, nag-ipon siya ng suweldo, kumuha ng loan sa bangko, at bumili ng kotse. Mura ang downpayment at di mabigat ang buwanang hulog. Kulang-kulang dalawang oras ang biyahe niya 'pag hindi umuulan, hindi araw ng suweldo, at umalis siya bago mag-alas seis ng umaga. Walang ibang daan papuntang Ayala galing QC kundi EDSA. Kapag umuulan, nasa tatlong oras din ang biyahe niya, pero pinagtitiyagaan niya ito – dahil sawang-sawa na siyang maghabol ng jeep, pumila sa ulan, at makipagsiksikan sa MRT.

Ngayong Miyerkoles, mapipilitan si Angel na iwan sa garahe ang pinag-ipunang kotse at makipag-siksikan muli sa dyip at MRT. Dahil ito ang araw na sisimulan ang trial ban sa driver-only cars sa EDSA. Sana’y hindi palda ang uniporme nila sa opisina. Sana’y puwedeng sumabit ang babae sa dyip. Sana'y may CR na malinis sa MRT. Sana. Sana.

Mayroon siyang kaopisinang babae na single mother, si Ate Nicole, na naghahatid ng anak sa paaralan gamit ang kotse bago pumasok sa opisina. Ang bigat pa naman ng bag ng bata sa eskuwela. Paano na kaya ang diskarte ng mag-ina 'pag naihatid na or susunduin pa lang ang bata sa esuwela at mag-isa si Mommy sa kotse? Hindi na siya makababiyahe sa EDSA. Ilang oras ang maaaksaya ni Ate Nicole habang naghahanap ng malulusutang kalye? 

The Indonesia experience

Kung titingnan ang karanasan ng Indonesia na may kahalintulad na ban, makikita ang pagsulpot ng car jockeys, o mga passengers-for-hire. Delikado ito sa driver at maging sa mga jockeys, dahil maganda itong pagkakataon sa mga holdaper at manyak.

Mas mainam nang kaunti ang buhay ng commuter sa Indonesia dahil may bus at train system na gumagana.

Dito sa Pilipinas, kulang na ang mga tren ng MRT, tumitirik pa. May mga istasyon na tumutulo kapag umuulan. Walang disenteng comfort rooms. Mapayat na ang isang oras sa pila kapag rush hour.

Kung pinili mong mag-bus, karamihan ay bulok at laging nakapila sa bus stop upang mag-antay ng pasahero.

Ayon sa isang pag-aaral, 16 araw ang ginugugol ng commuter na Pinoy sa trapik kada taon. Pagdating ng 2022, “standstill” na ang trapiko, dahil tantiyang 10 kph na lang ang maitatakbo ng sasakyan.

Ayon kay JC Punongbayan na nagtuturo ng economics sa University of the Philippines, dapat ma-discentivize ang pagbili ng kotse at maging efficient ang mass transit system. Pero tila walang balak ang gobyernong limitahan ang mga multinational sa pagbebenta ng mga kotse. Hitik ng advertisement ng kotse sa TV: mura ang downpayment, maliit ang monthly, maraming promo. Taon-taon, dumarami ang kotse at di naman nadadagdagan ang kalye.

No efficient mass transit

Kung ipagkakait ang murang kotse, o ipagbabawal ang driver-only cars, dapat nakaporma ang mass commuter system para saluhin ang hindi na papayagang magdala ng sasakyan. Dapat ay mas naisin ng mga katulad nina Angel at Ate Nicole na mamasahe kaysa magmaneho ng kotse.

Pero wala pang ipinatutupad na malinaw na istratehiya sa traffic ang gobyerno. Nakalilito pa rin ang iba-ibang traffic schemes ng magkakatabing siyudad sa Metro Manila.

Kamusta na ang phase-out ng mga lumang dyip sa ilalim ng PUV modernization program? Paano ang mga bus na tumatambay nang matagal sa gilid ng bangketa para maghakot ng pasahero? May nangahas na bang bumangga sa makapangyarihang lobby ng mga bus owners? Kumusta na ang ipinangakong improvements sa MRT at LRT? Dumami na raw ang mga tren, pero tila ganoon pa rin kasikip ang biyahe?

Sa MMDA naman, puro pangakong napapako at puro eksperimentong walang katuturan. Andiyang iba-ibahin ang mga U-turn slots. Andiyang lagyan ng physical barrier na naghihiwalay sa pampasahero at pampublikong sasakyan. Makalipas ang ilang buwan ay giniba na naman ang mga barrier. Maya’t maya may kinukutingting, wala namang nagbabago.

Noong siya’y kumakandidatong pangulo, inilahad ni Rodrigo Duterte ang plano niyang bigyang solusyon ang trapik sa Maynila. Ano'ng nangyari dalawang taon ang nakalipas? Kung sana’y tutukan lamang ni Presidente ang problema ng trapik tulad ng gigil niya sa giyera kontra-droga.

Anti-middle class

Sana’y tigilan na ang mga eksperimentong dagdag-parusa lang sa commuter. 

Hindi naman tatamaan ang mayayaman na may family driver. Ang tatamaan ay ang middle class na walang driver at pinapang-hatid-sundo ang sasakyan. 

Kung commuter ka, problema mong makarating sa pupuntahan mo dahil walang iskedyul, lohika, o sistema ang mass commute system sa 'Pinas.

Isa lang ang batas dito: bahala ka sa buhay mo. Makipagsapalaran lahat sa kalye. At hindi nakakatulong ang mga hindi-pinag-isipang polisiya ng pamahalaan. – Rappler.com 

Last week, the picketline at the NutriAsia, Inc factory in Marilao, Bulacan was violently dispersed and plant operations have resumed. But the labor dispute remains.

The union is still officially on strike, demanding that the company regularize some 900 contractual workers, recognize the union and reinstate dismissed members. In support of the workers, activists and concerned citizens have called for a boycott of NutriAsia’s products, among them such iconic brands as Datu Puti, Silver Swan, Mang Tomas, UFC, Jufran, Mafran, and Papa catsup.

NutriAsia, Inc maintains that the strikers are not their contractual employees but are regular and permanent employees of their contractors. The company insists that it has no employee-employer relationship with the said workers and, therefore, can’t be held liable for alleged violations of workers' rights and unfair labor practices. They accuse the affected workers of barking up the wrong tree.

Nothing can be farther from the truth. Here's why:

1. The DOLE actually found NutriAsia and its contractors to be engaged in labor-only contracting not once but twice

In February this year, the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE) ordered NutriAsia to admit as regular employees 914 workers in its Marilao plant hired by 3 of its contractors – Alternative Network Resources Unlimited Multipurpose Cooperative, Serbiz Multi-Purpose Cooperative, and B-MIRK Enterprises Corporation. According to DOLE, said firms acted as illegal labor-only contractors for NutriAsia, and so their hired workers should be considered regular employees of the company. DOLE also found the company and its contractors liable for several violations of labor laws and standards.

On this basis, workers under B-MIRK organized a union called Nagkakaisang Manggagawa ng NutriAsia to push for regularization. The management not only refused to comply with the DOLE order, but also refused to recognize the union, eventually leading to the June 2 strike.

Subsequently, the DOLE regional office issued another order on June 25 that ordered NutriAsia to regularize 80 employees from another contractor, Asia-Pro Multipurpose Cooperative (APMC). As in its February ruling, DOLE said NutriAsia and its contractor were illegally engaged in labor-only contracting.

Unfortunately, the same order reversed the February finding on B-MIRK and said it was not engaged in labor-only contracting. The union has appealed said findings of the regional office.

2. B-MIRK is a toll packing company AND labor-only contractor

NutriAsia insists that workers in its Marilao plant are actually regular and permanent workers of the “B-MIRK Group,” which it says is a legitimate toll packer/service provider of many leading companies.

For its part, B-MIRK claims to own a toll packing facility near NutriAsia’s Marilao plant, which exclusively caters to NutriAsia’s needs. The facility is actually called the NutriAsia Taurus 9 Plant and packs sauces and other products into sellable packages like sachets and plastic bottles.

However, B-MIRK also supplies workers to NutriAsia’s main plant in Marilao.

In its company profile, B-MIRK Enterprises Corp says it is engaged in contract manufacturing services. To quote: “Any process that a company wishes to move off site for reasons of space, capacity, capability or cost is a candidate for B-MIRK’s contract manufacturing services at highly competitive rates. The company provides labor, equipment, location and knowledge to create the best solution for our partners’ (customer) manufacturing/packaging requirements. B-MIRK acts as an extension of its partner’s company.” (Emphasis mine.)

Aside from functioning as an “extension of its partner’s company,” B-MIRK provides manpower services through the B-MIRK Multipurpose Cooperative (B-Mirk MPC), which is also a NutriAsia contractor. In its promotional materials, B-MIRK MPC says it provides ”primarily manpower services to its clients who seek for no administrative hassles and zero-VAT solutions.”

The striking workers were employed in NutriAsia’s main plant, not in B-MIRK’s Taurus 9 Plant. Many had been working for NutriAsia for at least 10 years. When management learned that they were organizing a union, their leaders were denied entry in the main plant and subsequently dismissed. An additional 70 workers were likewise denied entry and dismissed after participating in a clapping protest activity during their break time. It was such actions by the NutriAsia management that actually compelled the workers to strike.

3. NutriAsia uses B-MIRK to hide its real status as an employer

NutriAsia is, in fact, engaged in one of the oldest tricks in the contractualization handbook: using a third party (a manpower agency or, in this case, B-MIRK) to skirt its obligations as an employer.

On paper, the 900 or so workers at its Marilao plant may be employed by B-MIRK or some other contractor. But in reality, they are working for NutriAsia itself, doing work that is clearly essential and indispensable for a condiments manufacturing company – from logistics, production, quality control and packaging. It is NutriAsia that owns the plant, tools and equipment they use, supervises their work, pays them wages (as shown in their pay slips), and decides on every facet of their employment.

Even if it were true that workers in NutriAsia’s Marilao plant are “regular and permanent” workers of B-MIRK, they are mere contractuals as far as NutriAsia is concerned. NutriAsia managers and supervisors can hire or fire them at will without any consequence to the company. Once a worker is dismissed or laid off, or makes monetary claims for injuries at work, it’s only then that B-MIRK comes in to clean the mess, shielding the principal of any liability.

Even workers in the NutriAsia Taurus 9 Plant, allegedly owned by B-MIRK are, in effect, employees of NutriAsia. In fact, they churn out nothing but NutriAsia products.

4. NutriAsia uses contractors to sugarcoat its greed

NutriAsia is a multi-billion-peso company. It owns almost all of the country’s top brands in condiments and sauces. It corners 87% of the local vinegar market, 86% of the soy sauce market, 77% of ketchup and 97% of lechon sauce, among others, earning at least P11 billion in annual sales.

But because on paper, NutriAsia workers are supposedly employed by firms like B-MIRK or Asia-Pro, they can’t demand a share from all that money.

By making B-MIRK appear as the employer, NutriAsia gets off the hook for the workers' sorry plight. It is not NutriAsia that pays a measly P380 daily wage. It is not NutriAsia that imposes heavy 12-14 hour shifts, fails to pay overtime and 13-month wages, mistreats its workers or busts the union. Not at all. It’s B-MIRK that’s doing all those bad things.

Worse, by making it appear that they are “multipurpose cooperatives,” labor-only contractors can even avoid paying taxes, earning even more for themselves and their principals.

5. Government can and should protect the NutriAsia workers

Despite the vagueness of the Labor Code when it comes to temporary and contractual work arrangements, there is enough leeway for DOLE to interpret the law’s provisions in the spirit in which it was made – to protect workers from capitalist abuse and greed. In fact, this was what DOLE’s February order did. It went for the essential and ordered NutriAsia to regularize its contractual workers doing regular work.

When it comes to employment status, what is on paper is not necessarily what is in practice. NutriAsia might show all kinds of documents to show that it does not employ its own workers but merely contracts out work to B-MIRK. And B-MIRK might show all kinds of documents to show their workers have regular and permanent status. But all that flies in the face of the reality of workers working in a factory owned by NutriAsia producing NutriAsia products using NutriAsia equipment while being supervised by NutriAsia managers. Anyone who can’t see that is either blind or blinded. – Rappler.com

Around the time that the infamous i-pepe-dede-ralismo dance was busily plunging Philippine political discourse to the gutter, I was personally coming to terms with an image I had seen on my Facebook feed.

A friend had posted a picture of two bikini-clad Caucasian women lying on their surfboards. Two Filipino men who appeared to be surf instructors were guiding them through the water. The shot seemed to be taken from afar and above. The caption simply cautioned: men, let us not lose hope. Let’s call this second image as the “surfer women post."

The timing of these two posts was striking for me.

One was their visual symmetry. Both were alluding to the female body as an instrument of power – whether to control discourse in the federalism debate or the subtle, seemingly innocuous kind of “overpowering” force that justifies male ogling, catcalling, and “don’t wear this so as not to get raped” logic that form part of our everyday struggles as women. 

Equally remarkable was the general reaction they elicited – on one hand, many Filipinos (and Facebook friends) rightly expressed their outrage over Mocha Uson’s lurid treatment of important national issues and the “degradation of women and mothers,” as Harold Clavite of the Philippine Information Agency noted. 

In contrast, the men who commented on my friend’s surfer women post celebrated it with a deluge of likes, hearts, and wows. When I expressed my rage through the (very effective) angry emoji, I was met with dumbfoundedness.

Another friend messaged me to clarify my anger. After all, the post, by implying that earthly (male) beings still have a shot with such heavenly bikini-clad bodies, seemed to glorify Woman. The post’s message was clear: look at these women, they are hot. They are generally out of our league, but look at this picture, they are talking to the locals! There is hope for men!

Missing the point

The contrasting reactions (condemnation vs. celebration) over these two posts perfectly illustrate how some men (even the pepe-dede defensive kind) miss the point. It’s as if praising women’s bodies and seeing them as heaven-sent make them any different from Drew Olivar portraying women as nothing more than breasts and genitals.

It’s easy to hate misogynistic posts like the i-pepe-dede-ralismo dance (and rightly so!) for its objectification of women, yet at the same time celebrating men who display women’s bodies as wow doesn’t scandalize (enough of) us.

As long as men objectify women in a positive way, it’s okay it seems, oblivious to the fact that both treat women as nothing more than their bodies. It’s the classic Trojan horse, where misogyny is forgiven because of the beautiful wrapping.

Dominant images

In Philippine legal and political discourse, there are three dominant images of Woman – the virgin, wife, and mother.

When Clavite criticized the i-pepe-dede-ralismo dance and asked Uson to leave office for “degrading women and mothers,” I couldn’t help but note that important addendum – mothers. Though well-intentioned, it gives the impression that we have to be some kind of woman to earn this protection.

There is a whole class neglected by this defense – girls who are too young to procreate, and women who can but choose not to.

Why can’t our defense be because it degrades women, period?

Philippine rape jurisprudence doesn’t offer anything different.

Women are depicted as virginity warriors, called to protect their virginity to death. Anything beneath that is consensual sex, as if genitals were thrust upon each other through no positive act on the part of the man.

In this way, rape cases continue to hinge the guilt of the accused (often male) on the actions of the victim (often female). This portrayal of Woman echoes the argument of conservatives who have ceaselessly opposed the Reproductive Health Law – abstinence is the best form of contraception.

After all, women should be protecting their virginity for the life of them anyway, so abstain to avoid pregnancy! Filipino women, as protrayed by this narrative, are compelled to only have one story – progressing from virginity to marriage to childbirth. The end.  

The i-pepe-dede-ralismo dance drew flak for trashing Filipino women. That’s good.

But further inquiry into our intentions is necessary. We must locate the source of that angst. When I see images like my Facebook friend’s post, I come to wonder if the willingness of some of us to protect women is hinged on what these women have done (or are willing to do) with their bodies.

What are our reasons for defending women against sexism? Are they only worthy of protection because they are members (or potential members) of a family unit, those we deem “safe” to defend? 

Then the inevitable question – are we prepared to defend the women in the margins, excluded by images of the virgin, the wife, and the mother spun by male institutions in our public narrative? 

Benevolent sexism lives on in silence and maintains the harm. Don’t be fooled. – Rappler.com

Jenny Domino recently obtained her Master of Laws degree at Harvard Law School. She is currently a Harvard Fellow at ARTICLE 19, working on freedom of expression issues in Southeast Asia.

More and more groups are opposing President Rodrigo Duterte’s push for federalism via charter change, otherwise known as Bayanihan Federalism.

Rather surprisingly, a lot of the pushback is coming from Duterte’s own cadre of economic managers.

Last week Finance Secretary Sonny Dominguez said he would “absolutely” vote against the draft constitution, which could end up as a “fiscal nightmare.” Earlier, Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia said the draft constitution could “wreak havoc” on the economy.

While this strong dissent – uncharacteristic of the economic managers – has drawn the ire of some Duterte supporters, it has also drawn support from many business groups.

In this article we examine the burgeoning fiscal and economic critique of Bayanihan Federalism.

Not only does it endanger the government’s finances, it is also completely needless. By simply revamping the Local Government Code (LGC), we can empower the regions without assuming all the risks that accompany charter change.

In short, the costs of adopting Bayanihan Federalism seem to outweigh the benefits.

1) It doesn’t ensure regional self-governance.

True federalism entails regional self-governance. The regional governments are supposed to enjoy substantial independence and autonomy vis-à-vis the central or federal government.

But in Bayanihan Federalism, regional self-governance is very weakly established, if at all. By and large, it still props up a top-down relationship between the central and regional governments.

To wit, Article II, Sec. 27 of the draft constitution provides that the “Federal Republic shall promote the autonomy of local government units.”

But merely promoting autonomy is a far cry from ensuring self-governance. This is why many experts say that Bayanihan Federalism is not truly federalism, but just another exercise in decentralization.

2) It fails to define the division of labor between federal and regional governments.

Bayanihan Federalism also fails to delineate the duties and responsibilities of the federal and regional governments.

To be sure, Art. XII, Section 2 lists down the exclusive responsibilities of the regional governments, which now include socioeconomic development planning, economic zones, the justice system, and indigenous people’s rights and welfare.

But at the same time, the draft constitution removes from LGUs some of their current responsibilities, such as natural resource management services, environmental services, and – most crucially – social welfare and health services. Why take away these essential local functions?

More importantly, the draft constitution is deafeningly silent about the powers to be shared between the federal and regional governments, as well as between the regional governments and the LGUs.

Failing to define such division of labor has 3 likely effects:

• it could lead to duplication or underprovision of services by both federal and regional governments.
• it could weaken the accountability of public officials, since people won’t know whom exactly to blame for lousy delivery of services.
• it makes self-governance all but impossible.

3) It’s unclear how the federal and regional governments will share their tax powers.

Each subnational government’s tax powers should be proportional to the scale and scope of its activities (“finance follows function”).

But if we don’t know how precisely the federal and regional governments will coexist, how can we possibly assign their respective tax powers?

For instance, in the draft constitution, the federal government levies taxes and fees except those collected by the regional governments such as the real property tax, estate tax, donor’s tax, franchise tax, road user’s tax, etc.

But at the same time, Art. XIII, Sec. 3 explicitly says that, “No double taxation shall be allowed.”

If so, shall the right of provinces and cities to levy real property taxes, amusement taxes, and franchise taxes – as currently stipulated by the LGC – be clipped?

The draft constitution says nothing about this crucial nuance.

4) It doesn’t remove the regional governments’ dependence on the federal government.

Bayanihan Federalism aims to “empower the regions.” Yet the draft constitution fails to untether the regional governments from the central government.

In fact, Art. XIII, Sec. 4 provides that the regional governments shall be given no less than half of all income taxes, excise taxes, the value-added tax, and customs duties collected by the federal government.

This is even larger than LGUs’ current 40% share under their Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA). If we want the regions to be more self-sustaining, why automatically give half of national taxes to them?

Granted, regional governments will not always have the money they need, especially for big-ticket projects like infrastructure. Sometimes, they might have to borrow from credit and capital markets.

But Bayanihan Federalism fails to mention anything about subnational borrowing.

5) It could worsen regional economic inequality.

Bayanihan Federalism also provides that half of all national revenues are to be “equally divided” among the regional governments.

This means that poorer regions (say, ARMM) will receive the same amount of resources as richer regions (say, Calabarzon), even if the former doubtlessly need more support than the latter.

Such equal sharing scheme could only worsen rather than abate existing regional inequalities.

Moreover, even if we grant the regional governments full autonomy to tax, poorer regions will still yield lower revenues than richer regions.

Unless we first fix existing regional economic disparities, Bayanihan Federalism will only leave more poor regions behind.

6) It could make poorer regions more dependent on the federal government.

Bayanihan Federalism could also make regional governments more reliant on the central government than ever before.

Aside from partaking of half of all national revenues, regional governments can also tap into a new Equalization Fund: a pot of money, no less than 3% of the General Appropriations Act, which will help poor regions “achieve financial viability and economic sustainability.”

To be sure, equalization funds are present in other countries as well – like Canada, Australia, and Germany – but for a wholly different purpose: to ensure that citizens across the regions could enjoy roughly the same provision of public services given the taxes they pay.

Many studies also find that such transfers could remove poor regional governments’ motivation to harness their own economic potential. Instead of promoting productivity and innovation in their own jurisdictions, poorer regions may grow complacent and rely on regular dole-outs from richer regions.

Figure 1 shows that richer regions today – like NCR, Calabarzon, and Central Luzon – already tend to have a higher share of their revenues coming from local sources.

Figure 1.

To avoid dependency, guidelines for redistribution should be made clear at the outset. But Bayanihan Federalism falls short of explaining the mechanics of its Equalization Fund.

As pointed out by the Department of Finance, it’s also unclear whether the Equalization Fund will emanate from the revenues of the federal or regional governments.

7) It could significantly increase the budget deficit.

Finally, Bayanihan Federalism could endanger the government’s coffers.

Just last month, the Supreme Court ruled that all LGUs are entitled to a “just share” of 40% of all national taxes (not just those collected by the BIR).

This decision perfectly illustrates why we don’t need to undergo charter change just to give more funds to the regions. However, it could easily double the government’s budget deficit (or revenue shortfall) from around 3% to 6% of GDP.

Similarly, Bayanihan Federalism – which allocates an even larger share to the regional governments – could imperil the government’s budget.

Secretary Dominguez warned the deficit might reach as high as 6.7%, or more than double the 3% sustainable target. To avoid this, he said the national government may have to cut spending by P560 billion, lay off 95% of its employees, hold back the Build, Build, Build by 70%, or suffer a combination of these effects.

A ballooning deficit could also downgrade our international credit ratings and bump up interest rates to as much as 6% (interest rates will “go to hell,” said Dominguez).

All these will raise the cost of borrowing, stifle economic activity, and drag down the country’s growth.

Devil in the details

We haven’t even talked about the direct costs of federalism via charter change, which ranges anywhere from P60 billion to P130 billion per year.

But this is the least of our worries. For a document supposed to be the bedrock of our future system of government, Bayanihan Federalism is extremely ambiguous and sparse in details.

Not only is the draft constitution silent on many of the fiscal and economic provisions that are supposed to engine it, but its avowed goal of “empowering the regions” could also be achieved under the current constitution without resorting to charter change.

Of course, Congress might ignore Bayanihan Federalism altogether and come up with its own draft.

But if Bayanihan Federalism has any sway at all, is it any wonder why the economic managers are so deeply worried about Duterte’s push for federalism? – Rappler.com

The author is a PhD candidate at the UP School of Economics. His views are independent of the views of his affiliations. Thanks to Dr Chat Manasan of PIDS for sharing her slides in the June Senate hearing on charter change. For more on the topic, see her 2017 paper. Follow JC on Twitter: @jcpunongbayan.

MANILA, Philippines – Philosophy majors often get two different reactions when asked about their courses – awe, because of the seemingly esoteric nature of this field of study, and concern, because for the more conservative lot, taking up a course in the liberal arts is "useless."

History teacher Leloy Claudio talks to philosophy teacher JJ Joaquin about why this field of study may hold the key for human beings to gain a deeper understanding of the things around them. – Rappler.com

Last night, in the blog of the European Journal of International Law, I saw this disturbing headline –  “Young Philippine Lawyers Arrested Today for “Obstruction of Justice” in the Philippines Drugs War”.

That the blog entry was written by an esteemed colleague, Dr Diane Desierto, a tenured Associate Professor of Human Rights Law and Global Affairs at the University of Notre Dame in the United States, and a colleague in the University of the Philippines College of law, assured me that this was not fake but serious news. A fellow graduate of Yale Law School, I consider Professor Desierto as a one of the world’s top international lawyers and I always pay attention to her posts.

Attorneys Jan Vincent Sambrano Soliven, Lenie Rocel Elmido Rocha, and Romulo Bernard Bustamante Alarkon work for the family law firm, Desierto and Desierto Law Firm. Last Thursday, August 14, they were arrested earlier in Makati City, “while they were monitoring the police’s implementation of a search warrant on the premises of the Times bar that the police have dubbed a “drug den”. The lawyers had identified themselves as legal counsels for the owner and were there to observe the search of the premise.

According to Prof. Desierto, “Because two cabinets were locked and could not be opened, the police got a search warrant to inspect the cabinets. Our client asked the firm to send lawyers to monitor and watch the search of those two cabinets to safeguard against any planting of evidence or theft. Standard procedure. The police opened the cabinets, took their inventory, and then turned to my three young lawyers and said they had no authority to be there. My lawyers respectfully said they were legal counsels of the owner and were just sent by the firm to take notes and photograph the opening of the cabinets. But instead, one of the police team members thought they were being “arrogant” and immediately arrested them on a charge of 'obstruction of justice' (punishable with minimum 6 months imprisonment, maximum 6 years imprisonment). The police did not explain why, and how, the passive and quiet acts of note-taking and phone camera photography of cabinets being opened amounted to an 'obstruction of justice' under Philippine law.

As of noon time Friday, August 15, the young lawyers are still detained and unless the Supreme Court asks fast on a petition that is being filed today will likely spend the weekend in detention.

Professor Desierto shared on Facebook the stories of her young colleagues. I share excerpts of her post below:

“JV Soliven is a talented young law professor at Lyceum of the Philippines College of Law, who initially left law practice to become in-house counsel, and later on rejoined law practice when he saw my call to hire lawyers under our banner of principled ethical lawyering and efficient, non-political problem-solving. JV is a proud alumnus of Pamantasang Lungsod ng Maynila Law School. He is stoic, has a quiet sense of humor, plays the guitar and sings very well, and when he thinks I'm not looking, is actually always looking out for his younger colleagues in the firm. He is also one of the best young lawyers I have ever worked with – capable of patiently combing through stacks of evidence to find solutions for our client's problems, never overpromising but instead always overdelivering on solutions. Last night, when I spoke with him before they were forced into the cell, he was pale, shocked, afraid of the officers who kept yelling at them – and it was the first time I saw his stoicism slip out of concern for his two younger colleagues and the prospect of spending the night with 200 other detainees and becoming a litigant for the first time....

Lenie Rocel Rocha is a vibrant, warm, intelligent, and kind 25-year-old – the youngest in my firm – and extremely talented in international law, legal writing, and articulate at oral advocacy. As one of University of San Carlos Law in Cebu's top grads, she represented the Philippines as our National Champion at the International Rounds of the Jessup Moot Competition in Washington DC. Lenie is the daughter of a policeman in the Visayas, and she came to Manila for the first time to work in our firm.... Lenie has a sunny smile, and last night when I spoke with her on video before they were forced into their shared cells with 200 other detainees, I saw Lenie's innocence and idealism falter. She had so many tears and was bravely trying to show me that she was okay....

Romulo Bernard Alarkon – RB for short – is the kindest humanitarian lawyer I have ever worked with, and one so suited to litigation. RB hails from the same law school as the President of the Philippines - the powerful San Beda Law . . . RB supports family and friends, and began his career as a nurse caring for others, teaching English to students, and generally ministering to others' needs. He is a golden kind soul and a rare find these days in an era of cynicism and despair . . . RB has been experiencing health problems recently, and just came back from medical leave when he even volunteered to help his colleagues on this routine monitoring of the implementation of a search warrant.... I am proud of RB and it is of his health that I am worried the most and why I have gone without sleep for the past 18 hours trying to get him released from illegal arbitrary detention...”

This is not the first and the last time lawyers have been arrested and harassed for doing their work. Some have even been killed in the line of duty. During the Marcos era, lawyers Larry Ilagan, Marcos Risonar, and Antonio Arellano were illegally arrested. The Supreme Court failed us then. I hope they will not do so now.

I make mine the statement of the Manananggol (Manlaban) sa EJK:

“The arrest of three young lawyers, who were monitoring the service of a search warrant, highlights the complete degradation of law enforcement and the collapse of order in the country. As counsel of the property owner, the three lawyers were legally entitled to be present during the search. Search by police of private premises, if with color of law, requires witnesses. . .

Lawyers while in the legitimate exercise of their profession are considered officers of the court and aides to the administration of justice. Hence, they are entitled to due courtesy and respect.

Arresting, detaining, and charging them, ironically, with obstruction of justice shows how police have become brutal and high-handed in their operations, especially in those involving drugs. What more can they be toward people who know nothing about the law?

We soundly denounce the arrest of lawyers while in the peformance of their duties. This blatant show of excess and abuse by the police is a clear disregard of the law and independence of the legal profession, a direct and inevitable result of Duterte's unrelenting anti-drug war. Police high on power have gone wild and senseless, with only the barest regard for law or order.

Manlaban demands the immediate release of the lawyers and the dropping of charges. And not only will we stand by our colleagues in the profession who are at the frontlines, we join them in battle for reason and sanity. Police should expect countersuits as lessons in law and pain of penalty so timely due.”

Lawyers of the Philipines unite! Professor Desierto is right about JV, Lenie, and RB: “They could be you. They could be me. Today it's them. Just look in the mirror. Tomorrow it can be any of us.” – Rappler.com

Follow the author: tonylavs on Facebook and on Twitter

Thirty-five years after the assassination of Senator Ninoy Aquino, has his dream of building a republic on the principles of liberal democracy reached a similarly bloody conclusion?

The era in Philippine politics from 1986 to 2016, bookended by two Aquino presidencies, was meant to deliver a stable democracy. Yet, what we find today is very far from it.

Uneven development, creating large disparities in wealth, a multi-ethnic society, and a geographically dispersed population has made many questions whether liberal democracy can work in the Philippines.

These doubts have created two camps, each emphasizing an aspect of liberal democracy at the expense of the other. On the one hand are the pro-Duterte groups (ka-DDS), which are veering towards illiberal democracy. On the other hand are the dilawan (yellow army) under the Liberal Party, with their disdain for populism, leaning towards an undemocratic liberalism.

Duterte’s belligerence towards the Western rules-based order – he cursed at Obama, the EU, and UN, said he would chart an independent foreign policy, open towards Russia and China – suggests that the Philippines would become an illiberal democracy under his watch.

Two years into his presidency, these fears seemed to have materialized with several thousand murders as part of his crackdown on illegal drugs. This is coupled with intimidation of the press, involving the Philippine Daily Inquirer (under previous owners), ABS-CBN (facing non-renewal of its franchise), and Rappler (facing a closure order), and prosecution of vocal critics such as Senator Leila de Lima and leftist parliamentarians. (READ: From Marcos to Duterte: How media was attacked, threatened)

The biggest worry is that through constitutional change, Duterte could extend his term beyond 2022. It could happen since Duterte remains very popular. To his followers, he represents a circuit breaker to all that came before.

Following the 1986 People Power Revolution at EDSA, democracy was reintroduced, but this simply restored old political families and wealthy oligarchs. The concentration of power made the state susceptible to manipulation by vested interest groups, whether legal or illegal.

The media, which previously provided the citizenry with a common worldview, has now been supplanted by an army of pro-Duterte bloggers, alleging media bias in favor of dilawan ideology. Many of them belong to the post-EDSA generation.

Some dilawan senators sought to silence these new voices, branding them “fake news.” As proceedings wore on, it became clear how difficult it would be to regulate the market of ideas without curtailing freedom of expression.

This showed a growing disdain for democracy. The second EDSA revolt was another example. The dilawan in 2001 successfully unseated the then popularly elected President Estrada, and legitimized the power grab through the courts and media.

This undemocratic streak, seeking to undo the people’s will, persists under President Duterte. It creates a highly polarized world, where either party is paranoid over what the other might do to take or retain power.

And so, the dream of Ninoy seems just as elusive as ever.

But, perhaps things are not as bad as they seem. Just as the children of Israel wandered through the wilderness for forty years before entering the Promised Land, the children of EDSA could be on the cusp of something brilliant.

Through the years, programmatic policies were put in place to address social need. Free tuition at the tertiary level was introduced this year. Universal healthcare is gradually being phased in. Cash grants for the poor have likewise been expanded. Under the government’s infrastructure program, a jobs guarantee could be effectively realized.

Such programs were impossible in the early post-EDSA years, because of crushing debt left in President Marcos’ wake. As the nation gradually climbed out of this sinkhole, fiscal capacity grew, making room for such spending. And it will become increasingly so with tax reforms that successive governments have enacted. (READ: [OPINION] Did EDSA fail us?)

Programmatic policies are the antidote to populism. Instead of running to their padrino (political patron) in times of need, citizens can rely on services rendered by a professional bureaucracy. This gives them every chance to succeed, and lead a comfortable life.

The assumption here is that public goods will be evenly spread across our 7,100 islands, which is clearly not the case. To ensure consistency, we need a way to take from each locality according to its capacity and distribute, according to need.

Local government units (LGUs) currently retain a portion of national taxes collected. To fund their expenditures, they need to augment this with local revenue sources. A poor locality will have limited capacity to raise such revenue to pay for its services.

A new framework is needed to enable the national government to top-up LGU revenues so they may provide services at the same standard as wealthier localities. Such a system is proposed by the ruling PDP-Laban under a federal constitution, but it may also be devised under a unitary setup.

The newly approved Bangsamoro Organic Law will serve as a test case. Aside from keeping its mining royalties, the regional government will receive fiscal transfers disproportionate to its revenue-raising capacity. If this model succeeds, other regions could follow suit.

Only when programmatic policies are in place, and basic services are equitably distributed, will the foundation for a stable liberal democracy be set. We must not allow present political bickering to distract us. Civic faith must be restored.

Divisions between the ka-DDS and the dilawan are illusory. Each of them in fact holds a missing piece that, combined with the other, forms a stable liberal democracy – one with a strong, modern state, observing the rule of law, that is democratically accountable.

This was the impossible dream Ninoy pursued, that ultimately cost him his life. Many others have shed their blood, sweat, and tears pursuing the same dream. Let us not let their sacrifice be in vain. Let us reignite that bayanihan (community) spirit, so evident at EDSA ‘86 to finally bring our people home, into their Promised Land.- Rappler.com

Emmanuel Doy Santos, a policy analyst who dabbles in international development, is known online for his blog and Youtube channel The Cusp PH. He tweets as @cusp_ph.

President Duterte's public admission that he has grown "tired and exasperated" at his own inability to curb corruption and that he feels like resigning is certain to inspire some desperate excitement. Actually, his inability cuts across the board: he simply cannot hack the presidency. 

Before he meddled, the nation had been doing well. It had been growing at its highest average rate economically. Poverty incidence had been dropping steadily. Filipinos had been feeling more secure against crime than at any other time in more than a generation. All this is validated by standard measures. 

Enter Duterte, himself validated by clinical and judicial records as a pathological case, a sufferer from some "antisocial narcissistic personality disorder." That notwithstanding, he won the presidency on a decisive plurality; he had campaigned on the pretext of some grave national crisis.

That pretext has been fulfilled. Prices are running away. Official profligacy, itself no small source of corruption, is draining the treasury. Smuggling – notably of illegal drugs, Duterte’s crying concern – is rampant. Nothing gets done, and problems are aggravated by inefficiency and ineptitude. 

But if you think Duterte is really quitting you are fooled again. He cannot quit, not now, because to quit now is to yield power to a non-gangmate and risk retribution. No, he's not going without any assurance of an escape from accountability, and he won’t get it from his legitimate successor, Vice President Leni Robredo.

That’s why he pines for Ferdinand ("Bongbong") Marcos Jr, son of the late dictator he idolizes, whose family he owes as a major financier of his presidential campaign. If Bongbong had not lost to Leni, Duterte would have already handed over the presidency to him. Still, with help from the rest of the gang, whose sway across the institutions is considerable, he hopes to reverse his defeat by railroading the protest he had filed with the electoral tribunal. The tribunal is actually a reconstituted Supreme Court, the same Supreme Court whose rulings have pleased Duterte unfailingly in cases in which he took an interest.  

Curiously, Duterte named Francis Escudero as an alternate choice, however improbable, to succeed him. Having himself lost, even more decisively, in the vice presidential contest, Escudero returned to the Senate to serve the remainder of his term, and has been doing so in uncharacteristic quiet. It's doubtful he delights in being mentioned in the same breath as Bongbong and in the public being consequently reminded of his own lineage: his father, Salvador Escudero III, was Ferdinand Sr’s minister of agriculture and the hardiest of his loyalists. Till his dying day and long after his master was gone, he always wore the most conspicuous emblem of the dictatorship he served – a waist-long white shirt with red, white, and blue epaulets.

Indeed, gang hierarchy and loyalty is the name of the game. If in all this talk of succession Duterte has left out Gloria Arroyo, herself as much invested in him as the Marcoses, and if Arroyo herself is displaying disinterest in it, we’re just being played.

Arroyo has built her career on a boundless ambition that didn't stop at fraud. As vice president to President Joseph Estrada, she took over from him when he was ousted in midterm, for plunder; she would later pardon him. To put party hopefuls off the scent, she publicly announced that, not one to exploit her fortune, she would not run for a regular 6-year term. She not only ran, she rigged the vote. Then, toward the end of her nonrenewable term, she pushed for a rewrite of the Constitution to accommodate a shift to parliament. That way she could remain in power as prime minister. It didn't work out. 

President no longer and bereft of any suitable powers to manipulate, she could not escape her own arrest, for plunder, too. But her tricks still worked in detention to an extent. She spent most of her time as a detainee in the hospital, wearing a brace around the neck, ostensibly to prevent the head falling and rolling off. But once she was freed, early in the Duterte presidency, subsequently to be acquitted, the neck brace went. The head has since been not only holding up but working to full, malevolent capacity. 

Her final term ending as a member of the Lower House, and once again facing the prospect of powerlessness, she deposed the Speaker to take a direct, self-interested hand in presiding over another attempt at constitutional change. The express goal this time is federalization, but the covert one is the same: self-perpetuation in power and self-protection from prosecution, not only for her and Duterte but for their whole gang. 

Time may be running out on that scenario, a cumbersome one admittedly. In any case, waiting in the wings are Bongbong and next to him the President’s daughter, Davao City Mayor Sara, now undergoing crash grooming for national office – ultimately for the presidency. Arroyo and the Marcoses are, of course, taking no chances: they’re cultivating her.  

But how long can the sick and tired and inept old man wait? – Rappler.com

If the Israelite prophet Amos or Ezekiel were to prophesy in the Philippines today, this is what he would say:

The word of the Lord came to me thus: "Son of Man, I appointed you as a watchman for my people. Proclaim this oracle from housetops!"

Woe to you who call addicts "non-humans" deserving of death. Who gave you the right to pass judgment on people who are sick? You claim to care about the future of young people in this country. What future awaits them if they end up dead on a street alley after a "legitimate police operation"?

Woe to you who arrest and detain "drug suspects" without charges and extort ransom money from them and their relatives! You call yourselves "law enforcers" but have no regard for the law! You break into homes without search warrants; you arrest suspects without arrest warrants, you force "drug suspects" to work as assets and force them to point at other suspects for summary execution!

Woe to you who drive the poor victims of drugs more deeply into poverty and misery! You who neither respect human rights nor human lives. You who trample on people's dignity because they are poor and are unable to defend themselves! You who eliminate addicts like chickens infected with avian flu – do you not care at all that your victims have wives who are driven into despair and hopelessness, and children who end up like stray dogs and cats in the streets, sniffing solvents to forget their hunger?

Woe to you who indiscriminately submit names of alleged "drug suspects" to the police, or casually drop their names in drop boxes, knowing that the "drug watch list" is also used as a "kill list"? Do you even realize that in doing so you are practically pronouncing the death sentence of a fellow human being? Listen! The voice that cries "Where is your brother?" now confronts you and asks, "What have you done? Your brother’s blood cries out from the ground!" (Genesis 4:10)

Woe to you who claim to be waging a war against illegal drugs but are killing its victims instead of saving them! You who order law enforcers to murder when their mandate is to protect the citizens and defend their right to a safe and secure environment. Woe to you who blindly follow unjust and unlawful orders! You who blindly obey the command to "kill drug suspects if they resist arrest!" Woe to you who plant evidence in order to justify murder!

Woe to you who pretend to care about the lives of your victims! You even bother to bring them to hospitals only to have them declared "dead on arrival"! Do you even get to sleep at night after writing a false police report, claiming that they had fought back when God knows they did not? Do you not have wives and children yourselves?

Woe to you funeral handlers who are in cahoots with the murderers. You shamelessly arrive at the crime scenes, way ahead of the police! You who circle around human carcasses like vultures, preying on their families while they are still in a state of shock, charging nonrefundable down payments and exorbitant funeral services! You low creatures who take advantage of the helplessness of the widowed wives and orphaned children of the victims, pushing them more deeply into the mire of debts just so they could give their dead a decent burial.

Woe to you who just stand by and watch while the masked killers kill their targets in broad daylight! You who dismiss the murder quickly with a toxic whisper: "Must be another drug suspect!" You stare at them sprawled on cold pavement and note the brains spilling out of their shattered skulls. You stall the traffic by slowing down your vehicle to take a close look, shaking your heads as you go your way. "It's just another one of those low lives anyway," you reason within yourself. It's just one criminal less, one of those elements your family is being "protected from." You do not even bother to cover the cadaver with a blanket or some sheets of newspaper. How long has it been since your consciences died?

Woe to you who would give "due process" to influential people who flood the country with billion pesos worth of illegal drugs, you rotten vermins who allow tons of shabu to pass through the green lanes of the Bureau of Customs, you who just sneer at your accusers because you have all the means to enjoy legal protection and remedy! Are not the poor who are hunted like rabid dogs and cats in the slums, citizens of this country as well? Are they not entitled to due process because they are poor?

Woe to you who cover your faces with bonnets, ski masks, or helmets, and murder drug suspects like chickens! You who wrap up your victims in plastic bags and packaging tapes and leave them still gasping for their last breath. You who play god and even bother to hang on your victims' necks what you killed them for, not minding at all that you have acted as accuser, judge, and executioner – rolled into one? God knows who you are!

Woe to you law enforcers who pretend not to know who these serial-killing death squads are! They pass by your police stations, walk through narrow alleys in big groups, drive vehicles with no plate numbers, abduct, and murder "drug suspects". But you neither see them nor apprehend them; you neither pursue them nor engage them in a firefight; you neither investigate nor bring to a resolution any of the deaths resulting from their criminal operations. How will these criminals be caught if the ones who should be pursuing them are partners in crime?

Woe to you barangay captains who are in collusion with killers! You who turn off street lamps and CCTV cameras on cue, except when the killers have failed to "coordinate" properly with you! How often have the families of your constituents run to you asking for CCTV footages and you've given the standard reply, "CCTV not functioning"?

Woe to you boatmen who, for a fee, drop the corpses of victims into the North Harbor with weights tied around their bodies so as to keep them from floating? You who have no qualms about literally following orders to "fatten the fish of Manila Bay"? How can your consciences give you sleep at all?

Woe to you who call yourselves "Christians" but do not care an iota about the victims of extrajudicial killings, or even about priests who are being murdered. You who can still afford to laugh even when your faith is trampled upon and your God is called stupid! You blind fools! You come to Church and hear the Word of God; you line up for communion to receive the Lamb of God who died for sinners, but you tolerate the murder of those whom he died for! Woe to you who call yourselves "shepherds" but allow your sheep to be slaughtered.

Because your crimes have reached the highest heavens, and the cries of the bereaved families of victims have been heard on the throne of Mercy, because you have been weighed and have been found wanting, therefore your names will be written on the walls of the deepest recesses of the underworld. You will stumble on the very swords you have used as weapons to bully the poor with. Your guilt will be borne by your children and your children's children down to the fourth generation! – Rappler.com

Pablo Virgilio David is the bishop of Caloocan. This piece is his homily at the San Roque Cathedral on August 17, when a memorial marker was unveiled for Kian Loyd delos Santos, the 17-year-old student killed in a drug raid on August 16, 2017. Rappler is reposting this with the bishop's permission.

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

One of my favorite quotes that I find myself using always is "the young are the biggest investors in the future."

From the rise of strongmen like Rodrigo Duterte in the Philippines to the defeat of the National Front in Malaysia some 90 days ago, Asia is in a flux and it is a region of contrast.

However, the young must now stand up and be counted to ensure that Asia's star continues to shine.

Despite having a nonagenarian as Prime Minister, Malaysia has its youngest cabinet minister in Syed Sadiqq who is only 25 years old.

So clearly, some history is being made in Malaysia and after a long time, Malaysia has ministers and deputy ministers who are millennials.

I believe that the young must be given space and prominence in the political scene as Asia has one of the youngest populations in the world with a median age of 30.7, meaning, half of Asia's population is under 31.

Further, in order to give effect to the aspirations of the young, they need young leaders who will represent them.

However, the major problem afflicting the young is their apathy in politics. Politics, for too long in the Asian context, has been seen as a murky and opaque and reserved for the elites. While there is some truth in this perception, it is also true that politics is being "cleaned up."

Reforms currently underway in Malaysia, for example, will ensure a more open and participatory political process and the new government is actually looking at lowering the voting age to 18 years. Currently, only those 21 years and above are eligible to vote.

Also, civil society remains a strong engine for democratization in the Asian context and the role they have played in Malaysia, Indonesia, Thailand, and even Cambodia (despite the threats from the Hun Sen regime) despite the odds being stacked against them is inspiring. Further, a lot of these organizations are actually helmed by young, eager, and idealistic individuals who are committed to further the values of liberalism and democracy.

The young are also transforming the way we tackle issues once considered taboo. In Malaysia, growing acceptance among the young for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender individuals is an example of how the debate is being shaped by those with a more accepting and tolerant worldview. This is in turn has provided a fillip to a section of society that has been marginalized for too long.

As such, as we celebrate international youth month, the power to the young is an inevitable process, but the young must be honest trustees of these powers and exercise it with care and discretion to cure injustices of the past and right what is wrong in society.

We must also be steadfast in our struggle for a just and equitable future with no one left behind especially in a region with the most people living on less than $1 a day.

I believe that the presence of liberal youth organizations in Asia have a meaningful role to play and I, as a member of one, myself, intend to do my part to ensure that the justice, freedom, and equality remain at the forefront of our struggle for a kinder and gentler Asia. – Rappler.com

Ivanpal Grewal is the Chairperson of CALD Youth, youth wing of the Council of Asian Liberals and Democrats (CALD). Previously, he served as the Political Secretary to Hon. May Siew Keong, Gerakan National President and Malaysian Minister of Plantation Industries and Commodities.

Kung si Propetang Amos o Exequiel ay mangaral sa Pilipinas ngayon, ganito ang sasabihin niya:

Ang salita ng Panginoon ay ipinahayag sa akin nang ganito: "Anak ng Tao, itinalaga kita bilang tagapagbantay ng aking bayan. Ipagsigawan ito mula sa tuktok ng kanilang mga tahanan!"

Dumanas nawa kayo ng kasawian, kayong tumatawag sa mga adik na "hindi tao" at nararapat lamang na mamatay. Sino ang nagbigay sa iyo ng karapatang husgahan ang mga taong may karamdaman? Sinasabi ninyong may pagpapahalaga kayo sa kinabukasan ng mga kabataan ng bansang ito. Anong kinabukasan ang naghihintay sa kanila kung mamamatay rin lamang sila sa mga eskinita matapos ang "opisyal na operasyon ng pulisya"?

Dumanas nawa kayo ng kasawian, kayong humuhuli at nagkukulong sa mga "drug suspects" nang walang kaukulang kaso, at humihingi pa ng kapalit na salapi mula sa kanilang mga pamilya para sa kanilang kalayaan! Tinatawag ninyo ang inyong mga sariling mga "alagad ng batas" ngunit wala kayong paggalang sa batas! Pinapasok ninyo ang mga kabahayan nang walang "search warrants"; nanghuhuli kayo ng mga suspek nang walang "arrest warrants"; pinipilit ninyong maging "asset" ang mga suspek upang magturo pa ng ibang suspek na agaran ninyong papatawan ng parusang kamatayan!

Dumanas nawa kayo ng kasawian, kayong nagbabaon sa mga kawawang biktima ng droga sa higit na kahirapan at pagdurusa! Kayong hindi gumagalang sa karapatang pantao at sa buhay mismo ng tao. Kayong yumuyurak sa dangal ng iba dahil sila ay mahihirap at walang kakayahang ipagtanggol ang kanilang mga sarili. Kayong mga pumapaslang sa mga adik na para bang pumuksa kayo ng mga manok na tinamaan ng bird flu! Hindi ba ninyo naisip na ang karamihan sa mga biktima ninyo ay may mga asawang nabalo at itinutulak ninyo sa kawalan ng pag-asa, at mga anak na naulila at nagiging mistulang mga ligaw na aso at pusa sa mga lansangan, mga batang sumisinghot ng solvent para makalimutan ang gutom?

Dumanas nawa kayo ng kasawian, kayong basta na lamang nagsusuplong sa mga pulis ng mga pinaghihinalaang gumagamit at nagbebenta ng droga, o basta na lamang nagsusulat at nagpapasa ng kanilang mga pangalan sa mga "drop box," gayong alam ninyong ang "drug watch list" ay ginagamit ding listahan ng mga pinapatay. Nauunawaan ba ninyo na sa ginagawa ninyo, para na rin ninyong pinatawan ng parusang kamatayan ang inyong kapwa? Makinig kayo! May tinig na sumisigaw mula sa langit ng "Nasaan ang iyong kapatid?" at "Ano ang iyong ginawa? Humihiyaw ang dugo ng iyong kapatid mula sa lupa!" (Genesis 4:10)

Dumanas nawa kayo ng kasawian, kayong mga nagsusulong ng giyera kontra droga ngunit pumapaslang naman sa mga biktima nito, sa halip na iligtas sila. Kayong mga nag-utos sa mga alagad ng batas na pumatay gayong ang kanilang sinumpaang gawain ay ang ingatan ang mga mamamayan at ipagtanggol ang kanilang mga karapatan para sa isang ligtas at matiwasay na kapaligiran. Sa aba ninyong mga mapagpaimbabaw na bulag na sumusunod sa kautusang "pumatay ng mga suspek kung sila ay manlaban!" Sa aba ninyong mga mapagpaimbabaw na nagtatanim ng mga ebidensiya upang masabing makatwiran ang pagpatay!

Dumanas nawa kayo ng kasawian, mga mapagkunwari. Tunay nga bang malasakit sa buhay ng mga biktima ang dahilan kung bakit isinisugod pa ninyo sila sa mga ospital para lamang maideklarang dead on arrival. Nakakatulog pa ba kayo sa gabi matapos na magsulat ng walang katotohanang "police report," na nagsasabing nanlaban ang mga hinuli ninyo, gayong alam ng Diyos na hindi iyon totoo? Wala ba kayong mga asawa at anak?

Dumanas nawa kayo ng kasawian, mga may-ari ng puneraryang kasabwat ng mga mamamatay-tao! Kayong mga walang konsensiya, na una pang dumarating sa mga eksena ng krimen, bago pa man tugunan ng mga pulis-imbestigador! Kayong mga napakasipag mag-abang na parang mga buwitre sa bangkay ng pinaslang, kayong mga nananamantala sa kanilang mga pamilyang wala pa sa sarili dahil sa pagkasindak sa malagim na pangyayari. Sinisingil ninyo sila ng walang-bawiang down payment at ng labis-labis na halaga para sa serbisyo! Kayong mga mabababang nilalang na nanamantala sa walang kalaban-labang mga nabiyuda at naulila, na namatayan na'y mas lalo pang nababaon sa malalim na hukay ng pagkakautang, dahil sa marubdob na hangaring mabigyan ng disenteng libing ang kanilang kaanak.

Dumanas nawa kayo ng kasawian, kayong walang pakialam at nanonood lamang habang pumapatay ang mga naka-bonnet na salarin sa liwanag ng araw! Kayong mabilis na nagkikibit-balikat at umuusal ng makamandag na bulong, "Kasangkot siguro sa droga iyan!" Kayong mga usyoserong nakatingin lamang sa bangkay na nakahandusay sa semento, nakatitig sa sumabog nilang utak mula sa nawasak na bungo. Kayong nagbabanayad sa pagmamaneho upang masulyapan sila nang mas malapitan, umiiling pa pagkatapos lampasan and bangkay. "Marahil ay kriminal," ang pagdadahilan mo sa sarili. Kasama sa mga inililigpit para "maprotektahan ang iyong pamilya." Hindi ka man lang mag-abalang takpan ng kumot o kahit diyaryo lang ang bangkay? Kailan pa namatay ang inyong mga konsiyensiya?

Dumanas nawa kayo ng kasawian, mga nagbibigay ng "due process" sa mga maipluwensiyang taong nagpapasok ng iligal na droga sa bansa na bilyon-bilyong piso ang halaga. Kayong mga kasabwat ng mga smugglers ng droga at mahusay gumawa ng paraan upang makalagpas sa Bureau of Customs ang tone-toneladang shabu. Pinagtatawanan 'nyo lamang ang mga nagdedemanda sa inyo dahil nasa inyo ang makinarya ng "legal" na proteksiyon at solusyon! Hindi ba't mga mamamayan din ng bansang ito ang mahihirap sa mga komunidad na tinutugis na parang mga ulol na aso at pusa? Sila ba'y walang karapatan sa due process dahil mahihirap lamang sila?

Dumanas nawa kayo ng kasawian, kayong mga nagtatakip ng mukha sa pamamagitan ng pagsusuot ng bonnet, ski mask, o helmet, at pumapatay ng mga drug suspek na parang kumakatay lamang kayo ng mga hayop! Walang pakundangang ibinabalot pa ninyo ang inyong mga biktima sa plastic bag at packaging tape at iniiwang naghahabol pa ng kanilang huling hininga. Kayong gumagampan na parang diyos at nagsasabit pa sa leeg ng inyong biktima ng karatulang nagsasaad kung bakit 'nyo sila pinatay. Hindi 'nyo alintana na kayo na ang nagsilbing tagapagsakdal, kayo pa rin ang hukom, at berdugo. Alam ng Diyos kung sinu-sino kayo!

Dumanas nawa kayo ng kasawian, mga tagapagpatupad ng batas na nagpapanggap na hindi alam kung sino itong mga death squad na sunud-sunod kung pumatay! Dumaraan sila sa inyong mga estasyon, naglalakad nang maramihan sa mga eskinita, nagmamaneho ng mga sasakyang walang plaka, dumarampot at pumapatay ng mga drug suspek. Pero hindi 'nyo sila nakikita o hinuhuli; hindi 'nyo sila tinutugis o nilalabanan; hindi 'nyo sila iniimbestigahan; hindi kayo umaaksiyon para masolusyunan ang mga kamatayang dulot ng kanilang kriminal na gawain. Paano sila mahuhuli kung kasabwat ang dapat sana'y huhuli?

Dumanas nawa kayo ng kasawian, mga kapitan ng barangay na nakikisabwat din sa mga pumapaslang! Kayong mga nagpapatay sa mga CCTV camera sa tamang oras, maliban na lamang kung hindi kayo nasabihan ng mga mamamatay-tao bago gawin ang krimen! Ilang beses ba kayong nilapitan ng mga kapamilya ng biktima, humihingi ng mga CCTV footage at sinabihan silang "hindi gumagana ang CCTV"?

Dumanas nawa kayo ng kasawian, mga bangkero na kapalit ng pera'y naghuhulog ng mga bangkay ng mga biktima sa North Harbor, na may pabigat pa sa mga katawan upang hindi lumutang ang mga ito. Hindi man lamang ba kayo nakonsiyensiya ng inyong budhi sa tahasang pagsunod sa utos na "patabain ang mga isda sa Manila Bay"? Paano pa kayo napapatulog ng inyong budhi?

Dumanas nawa kayo ng kasawian, kayong mga tumatawag na "Kristiyano" sa sarili ngunit wala mang lamang ni katiting na pagpapahalaga sa buhay ng mga biktima ng pagpatay, o kahit sa mga paring pinapapatay. Nagagawa pa ninyong makatawa kahit niyuyurakan na ang inyong pananampalataya at tinatawag na tanga ang Diyos! Kayong mga bulag na hibang! Nagsisimba pa man din kayo para makinig sa Salita ng Diyos; pumipila sa komunyon para matanggap ang Kordero ng Diyos na namatay para sa mga makasalanan, ngunit hinahayaan 'nyo namang mapatay ang mga pinag-alayan Niya ng buhay!

Dumanas nawa kayo ng kasawian, kayong nangangalandakang "pastol" ngunit pinababayaang paslangin ang inyong mga tupa.

Samakatuwid, dahil ang inyong mga krimen ay umabot na sa kataas-taasang kalangitan, at ang mga iyak ng mga namatayang pamilya ng mga biktima ay narinig sa trono ng Awa, dahil kayo ay tinimbang at napag-alamang kulang na kulang; samakatuwid, ang mga pangalan ninyo ay masusulat sa mga pader ng kaloob-looban ng impiyerno. Matitisod kayo kayo sa mismong mga espadang ginamit ninyo sa pang-aalipusta sa mmga walang kalaban-laban. Mamanahin ng inyong mga anak at mga apo, hanggang sa inyong mga apo sa tuhod ang kasalanan ninyo, hanggang sa ikaapat na henerasyon! – Rappler.com

Si Pablo Virgilio David ang obispo ng Caloocan. Ito ang homilya niya noong Agosto 17, kung kailan pinasinayaan ang memorial marker para kay Kian Loyd delos Santos sa San Roque Cathedral. Inilimbag ito ng Rapper nang may pahintulot ng obispo. 

Are you tired, Mr President? 

So is the stranded overseas Filipino worker who missed her flight back to work in Dubai last weekend because of an airport accident at NAIA. So are grade school students in the boondocks of Central Mindanao who walk 7 kilometers to school 5 days a week on dirt road, rain or shine. So is your soldier who’s been fighting the communists for more than 40 years already – and still counting. 

They have not resigned because they cannot and will not. Many of them, in fact, voted you to office in 2016 in hopes you’d make their tiredness worthwhile. 

Why would you threaten to quit on them simply because you’re frustrated with corrupt public officials, as if that’s not everyday reality for Filipinos banking on the promise that change is coming?

And why would you dare choose your successor from a bench of losers when you already have one?

President Duterte’s meandering statements Tuesday night, August 14, are worrisome both for what were said and how political players and the general public responded to them. (READ: Duterte: 'I am ready to step down')

He must be playing with us again or lacked good sleep the night before, was the subtext of the reactions from politicians the day after – which bordered on the flippant to the dismissive.

But words have never been empty for this leader. 

No other president has mobilized the bureaucracy to action as much as he has, in clear, categorical language. Kill the addicts. Run after drug-dealing mayors. Jail that woman senator. Impeach the chief justice. Punish “fake news” media. Embrace China. Dance with Russia.

Duterte’s words set the tone, shape public acquiescence, and create the environment for fast action by government and non-government actors who act on his bidding.

On August 14, the President said two things. First, he’s ready to quit, but for love of God and country he won’t because waiting in the wings is the “incapable” Vice President Leni Robredo. Second, he preferred two possible successors: the military or Bongbong Marcos.

Now let’s cut to the chase.

The President seems and looks more than tired. 

On the eve of his State of the Nation Address on July 23, he went to the hospital for a checkup but some say it was more than that. He was not himself on SONA day – as he allowed the bickering Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Pantaleon Alvarez to grab the news agenda from him, and, more surprising, he stuck to the teleprompter in his most boring and lackluster SONA performance yet.

As early as September last year, the President has been talking about mortality and quitting the presidency. 

So instead of asking if he's tired, we taxpayers should demand disclosure about this national security concern. Are you seriously ill, Mr President? The nation, after all, deserves a fully-functioning presidency. 

The other concern is about the President's irresponsible statement on succession.

Preferring Bongbong Marcos could not have come at a more circumstantial time for the defeated vice presidential candidate and the Supreme Court, which, as an electoral tribunal, is hearing Marcos' protest against Robredo. 

The statement was made as senior justices lined up at the Judicial and Bar Council to vie for the vacant chief justice post. Duterte now has 4 appointees to the Court, and is filling up 4 more vacancies by the end of the year. 

Who can be blamed for thinking the President is sending signals to his SC appointees to favor Marcos?

Then the President pushed the envelope further, as he tempted the military with the option of succeeding him. Which is dangerous, coming from the commander-in-chief, because now he’s planted the seeds and who knows how this would shape conversations in the camps.

Cynics are saying these are just words. But if there’s any legacy that this President would have, it is that his words take on a life of their own and have consequences that last beyond his term.

Duterte’s declared options are not only extra-constitutional, they’re novel in a country that thinks it already has had enough of political experiments. 

Every president has the right to resign. But not on his own terms.

Duterte's contract with the public, as stipulated in the Constitution, clearly states both how he should govern and how – should he decide to give up – he should transfer the reins of power to his successor.

No room for wishful thinking there. – Rappler.com

Hun Sen’s bogus election held on July 29 throws down the gauntlet to the international community to prove that democracy is possible in Cambodia.

The only party that could have defeated the government, the Cambodia National Rescue Party (CNRP), had been banned after its excellent showing in the 2017 local elections. In the national vote, the ruling Cambodian People’s Party bribed and intimidated people to go and vote, inflated the published turnout when most of them refused, and then awarded itself all of the national assembly seats, 125 out of 125.

For the first time in the 25 years since the elections organized by the United Nations in 1993, Cambodia lacks a legitimate government recognized by the international community. The country has returned to Communist dictatorship; even the pretense of political pluralism has gone.

The United States, the European Union, Australia, New Zealand, Japan, the UK, and Sweden refused to send any observers to the election. There was nothing to observe. The farce was a violation of both Cambodia’s constitution and an international treaty, the Paris Peace Agreement of 1991. The absence of Japan, which played a key part in the UN-supervised transition to democracy in the early 1990s and has been Cambodia’s largest donor since, spoke volumes.

Hun Sen is willing to bet that support from China – alone – will be enough to keep his regime alive. It’s not the first time that China has propped up a communist dictator in Cambodia. This has not proved to be a model for stable governance. If it is in China’s interests to change its mind about supporting Hun Sen, then it inevitably will. In that sense, Hun Sen has already lost control of the situation. The plan is to allow China to decide. There is no plan B.

The reaction of the international community is critical in this context. A start has been made. The US said in August that it’s expanding visa restrictions on individuals responsible for "anti-democratic" actions in the run-up to the election. Other countries should follow suit, and the scope of the sanctions should be extended.

The regime’s contempt for its erstwhile Western allies has become even plainer. The head of Cambodia's tax department, Kong Vibol, has amassed a multi-million dollar fortune which he has stashed away in Australia. In August, Global Witness started a campaign for sanctions against 4 allies of the regime accused of human rights abuses, environmental destruction and corruption.

These are logging baron Try Pheap, Ly Yong Phat, Mong Reththy, and Lao Meng Khin. The assets of those who have benefited from a corrupt and authoritarian regime must be frozen in whichever jurisdiction they have been hidden.

Tariff-free market access for Cambodia was originally granted by the West as recognition of the country’s transition to democracy. If the US and the European Union ended these policies, Cambodia’s exporters would face an estimated US$676 million per year in tariffs. China will not be picking up the slack. Beijing invests in Cambodia, but there are no markets in China for Cambodian goods. The end of tariff-free markets would destroy Cambodia’s textiles industry. Nobody wants to see that happen, but Hun Sen’s recklessness has made it a real possibility.

The Prime Minister is treating Cambodia as a personal fiefdom that can one day be handed over to one of his sons. However, the international community since the early 1990s has accumulated a huge sunk cost in backing Cambodian democracy – a cost made up of taxpayers money. Hun Sen is being unrealistic if he expects that cost to be written off.

Hard-hitting visa sanctions and asset freezes against a much broader range of beneficiaries of the corrupt regime, implemented in a coordinated way by the West, have the best chance of bringing Hun Sen to his senses and avoiding the nightmare scenario of export tariffs. The regime and its cronies need access to foreign education systems for their families, and foreign bank accounts to hide the fortunes they have amassed. Banks must cooperate in locating and freezing these accounts, and stop lending to an illegitimate regime that relies on intimidation, violence and murder to sustain itself.

A vicious circle rests in the fact that the use of violence alienates the population from the government and isolates the government from the international community. So the government feels more threatened and resorts again to the only methods that seem to work. The alternative path of dialogue with the opposition has always been open, and remains open now.

The international community must pressure Hun Sen to release jailed CNRP leader Kem Sokha and all of Cambodia’s political prisoners, reinstate the CNRP and hold a real election. The Malaysian election showed that seemingly permanent regimes are finished as soon as they lose popular support.

Malaysia shows also that corrupt governments can and will be bought to account through the courts. Cambodians deserve the right to decide their own destiny. The iron grip in which Hun Sen holds the country means that they are unable to exercise that right alone. – Rappler.com

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

The passage of the TRAIN law and the ongoing debate now on additional tax reform packages raise the issue of what products and activities should be properly taxed. I argue in this article that carbon emissions should be the next target of tax policy and that revenue from this should be used to support universal health care. 

The world is full of unintended consequences. Economists know this all too well and even have a term for it for when it involves a third party – they call it an externality. The classic example of a negative externality is smoking as the smoker does not compensate those nearby for damaged lungs caused by inhaling second-hand smoke. 

In most cases, people will tend to ignore a small negative externality if they can step away from it. In a top Manila university, the establishment of isolated “smoking pocket gardens” was lauded by non-smokers, but obviously detested by the smokers.  

But what happens when the negative externality is too big to ignore and the whole of society is affected?

Air pollution caused by emissions of carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gasses can’t simply be pocketed away. Economists also know that externalities that result in a net social welfare loss would need some form of market or government intervention. 

Many have written about this topic, but it bears repeating: energy produced by coal-fired power plants (CFPP) generates a significant amount of greenhouse gasses, which contributes to climate change. If the country’s planned CFPP projects all become operational, we will have an excess amount of energy generated from coal.

But, since you can’t just shut off a coal-fired power plant when you don’t need the energy, they will continue to burn coal and produce greenhouse gasses at maximum capacity. That’s like a smoker continuously lighting up another cigarette before finishing the previous one. It’s unnecessary and wasteful, not to mention it has severe implications on our environment and our health.

'Market failure' of fossil fuel prices

Coal, among all the fossil fuels such as gas and diesel, is perceived as "cheap" and readily available but its true social costs are not accounted for. 

If carbon emitters all over the world were to pay for all the negative externalities, estimates put the global social cost of carbon at $40 per metric ton of CO2 emitted.

In contrast, the recently passed TRAIN law levies an excise tax on coal of less than $1 per metric ton of coal in 2018 – that’s equivalent to 34 US cents per metric ton of CO2 (MT/CO2) – far less than what it costs us to mitigate the impact of air pollution generated by coal power plants. Furthermore, the excise tax in this case is not at all meant to directly address the externalities caused by burning coal as a fossil fuel. 

If we are to truly capture the externality caused by CO2 emissions, we need to address what the Department of Finance’s National Tax Research Center (NTRC) calls a “market failure” in fossil fuel prices.

Putting the right price on carbon that is specific to the Philippine experience will in effect make polluters accountable and address the risks of climate change.

To be fair, this accountability should extend to coal, gas, and diesel for energy generation as well, with the government annually collecting information on actual emissions to measure progress against our commitments to the Paris Agreement.

Getting price of carbon right

A soon-to-be-released study of by a team I led from Manila Observatory (MO) took into account different carbon pricing models in order to come up with a localized price model.

The models range from the globally accepted price of $40 MT/CO2 to the NTRC’s and World Bank’s estimates of $2-4 MT/CO2. Based on the MO study, the government should consider a Philippine carbon tax of $10 MT/CO2 to sufficiently cover the damages associated with carbon emissions.  

When compared against other countries that have implemented the carbon tax, a Philippine carbon accountability charge of $10 MT/CO2 is way below the tax levied by industrialized western nations and slightly above our regional neighbors Japan ($3 MT/CO2) and Singapore ($4 MT/CO2).

If we do this right, we would be ahead of the curve and will be credited for thinking about our long-term sustainability.  

Fund for health care, no burden for poor 

Aside from the environmental dimension of the carbon tax, the government will be able to raise much needed revenue – around at least P52 billion – which would go in part to offset the inflationary impact of the new tax and in part to fund the estimated P100 billion needed for Universal Health Care (UHC).

For a country that spends 0.6% of GDP ($400 million) on health expenses caused by pollution, taxing carbon to fund health care coverage is not only logical, but it is the right thing to do.

Given the current atmosphere surrounding the TRAIN law and higher inflation, the public may be concerned that an additional carbon tax would be inflationary. The risk to inflation is valid but can be mitigated.

According to our study, electricity rates would increase by less than P1 per kWh. For an average household that consumes 200 kWh of electricity, that amounts to a P94 increase in their bill every month. For smaller consumers, their bill could be offset by direct subsidies so they won’t have to pay an additional centavo. 

Window of opportunity 

There is no better time to discuss carbon accountability charges than now.

The House and the Senate are currently deliberating additional tax reform packages, which can include this proposed tax.

House Bill 4739, authored by Representative Luis Raymund Villafuerte, proposes an even higher tax of $20 MT/CO2, which is still in line with global carbon tax practice. Between the banking sector’s increasing concern about stranded assets of fossil fuel power plants and our country’s commitment to reduce emissions and limit climate change, the policy window to take action that will benefit society for generations to come is wide open.

Will our lawmakers intently seize this golden opportunity or will they resign us to a future of unintended consequences? – Rappler.com

If you ask President Duterte’s economic managers, the weakening peso – now more than P53 to the US dollar – has an important redeeming value: it supposedly makes our exports “more competitive”.

Somehow, this hasn’t happened yet. Data show that our exports have in fact seen 6 consecutive months of negative growth since January 2018. Instead of growing, our exports are actually shrinking.

At the same time, exports of our regional neighbors are flourishing. In the first quarter of 2018, Philippine exports shrank by 5.5%, whereas Indonesian exports grew by 8.7% and Vietnamese exports increased by 25.1%.

Why are exports weakening despite a weaker peso? If we take the word of the economic managers, isn’t this puzzling?

Shrinking exports

Figure 1 compares the growth of our exports and imports side by side. You can see right away that, especially in the past few months, our imports have surged while our exports have contracted.

In June alone, imports grew by more than 24% since last year, but exports contracted by 0.1%. This is the 6^th consecutive month of shrinking exports.

Figure 1.

Parsing the data, you’ll see that for the first 6 months of 2018 exports of woodcrafts and furniture shrank by 66.5%, followed by sugar (–61.1% growth), shrimps and prawns (–56.2%), manufactures made from imported goods on consignment (–54.8%), and chemicals (–44.4%).

Meanwhile, imports of chemical compounds shot up by 556.9%, followed by “other special transactions” (+133.4%), corn (+58%), unmanufactured tobacco (+57.7%), telecom electronics (+54.4%), office equipment electronics (+36%), automative electronics (+34.3%), and iron and steel (+31.8%).

When imports consistently exceed exports, the “current account deficit” worsens. Figure 2 shows that, as a share of national income (whether measured by GDP or GNI), current account deficits are becoming more and more frequent. The long spell of current account surpluses seems to be over.

A widening current account deficit reflects a growing gap between domestic saving and domestic investment. Hence, we’re becoming a “net borrower” from the world once more. (READ: Duterte’s “twin deficits”: What you need to know)

Figure 2.

3 possible reasons

At first it makes intuitive sense that a weakening peso should boost exports.

After all, exports are quoted in terms of foreign currencies like the US dollar, and a weaker peso means each dollar could exchange for more pesos. The law of supply and demand tells us a weaker peso makes our exports cheaper for foreigners, and they should demand more of it.

But in light of recent data, this theory doesn’t seem to work. How come?

Here are 3 possible reasons. First, the demand for exports and imports may not be too sensitive to price changes.

No matter how much we lower the price of exports, if the demand for exports is not sufficiently “price-sensitive,” export receipts may in fact go down rather than up.

This could happen if, say, exporters and importers cannot immediately change their orders, deliveries, and inventories amid the weaker peso. Over time, however, they can adjust more easily.

What makes this theory unconvincing, however, is that the peso has been steadily weakening since 2013. Haven’t exporters and importers adjusted yet?

Second, exports could be weakening despite a weaker peso because a large part of our exports are heavily dependent on imports.

For instance, did you know that for a long time our largest exports (electronic products) are also our largest imports?

As of June 2018, electronic products comprised 58.8% of the value of total exports, while at the same time comprising 25.3% of all imports. Semiconductors alone comprised 42.6% of exports and 17.1% of imports. By one account, as much as 70% of this industry’s inputs are imported.

A lot of what we’re exporting is therefore just assembled and packaged imports. To the extent that a weak peso makes imports more expensive, it should come as no surprise that import-dependent exports could be hurt (rather than helped) by a weaker peso.

This has led some economists to argue that we need to revamp our export industry so more of them belong to global production chains of higher value.

In other words, exporters of manufactured goods must diversify and produce more high-value goods (like cellphones, tablets, solar panels) rather than be stuck in back-end operations (like assembly, testing, packaging).

Third, our export sector is steadily losing out to competition in other ASEAN countries.

Last year foreign buyers canceled their orders of goods from Filipino exporters who were found non-compliant with international standards and requirements. These foreign buyers would rather place orders with Vietnamese or Cambodian firms.

Many manufacturers are also choosing to locate in Thailand and Vietnam, owing to the perceived worse business environment in the Philippines. Many small Filipino exporters also find it difficult to scale up their production to exploit larger markets abroad.

To be sure, President Duterte recently signed the Ease of Doing Business Act, and the Department of Trade and Industry also came up with the Philippine Export Development Plan for 2018-2022.

But before these new laws and plans become effective, they will have to come to grips with many domestic factors (like the TRABAHO bill and the push for federalism, which could turn off some investors and raise the cost of doing business, respectively) as well as international factors (like the burgeoning US-China trade war).

Exports in the doldrums

In the coming months, the peso is expected to weaken further against the US dollar, what with continuous imports for Build, Build, Build and the US Fed about to raise its interest rates further. (READ: Why is the Philippine peso the weakest in ASEAN?)

But as we’ve shown here, a weaker peso is no assurance of booming exports, in contrast to the claim constantly trumpeted by the economic managers.

Rather than justify the weaker peso this way, the economic managers ought to seek ways to address key structural issues that have long beleaguered the export industry.

These might include finding ways to integrate our exporters into higher global value chains, support small and medium enterprises venturing into foreign markets, or effectively bring down the cost of doing business.

Economic myths abound these days, even without the idea that a weak peso necessarily makes exports more competitive. Let’s disabuse ourselves of such notion. – Rappler.com

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

Heto na naman us. Like you know what I mean. To make habol sa about-to-conclude na national Buwan ng Wika celebs. Like most of the celebrations in schools were really lit and fab. Gosh. Kaya naging in na in na naman ang nagpilit managalog o mamilipinong variety show host o media on-air even if they are fluent naman in English talaga. Ow wait, hindi rin sila fluent in English! Or Filipino. Like. Hindi. Sila. Fluent. At. All. Tulfo twang. Lang. Pala.

 Bueno, seryoso, inilabas at pinagkakitaan na naman ng mga higanteng mall ang mga stock nila ng Filipiniana costume dahil maraming bibong paslit at mga nagsipayat (o, #realtalk, nagsitaba) na titser ang napilitang bumili at manamit ng baro’t saya, kamisa at barong. Suwerte na kung may nagpatadyong o nagtapis ng malong. Marami, lalo na, ang napilitang sumambit-sambit ng mga salitang amoy-tokador o galing sa baul na amoy alkampor. Na para bang, sige, mahal ko ang sariling wika kasi nagamit ko na naman ang salitang “subalit” at “datapwat.” Kahit maskipaps.  

Nauso na naman, sabi nga ng isang kaibigan kong propesor sa isang swanky university sumwhere in Taft, ang mga timpalak ng sabayang pagsigaw ek sabayang pagbigkas pala, pagsulat ng sanaysay (sumali ang anak ko kamakailan sa writing contest na kaugnay ng Buwan ng Wika, as of this writing, hindi ko pa alam kung olats). Patok na naman ang interpretative dance ng kantang “Bulag, Pipi, at Bingi,” “Ako’y Isang Pinoy,” at “Isang Lahi.” Pagbuo ng slogan na may sukat at tugmang talipapa. Idagdag pa ang beaucon na Ginoo at Lakambini ng Wika. 

Marami na namang nagtalumpati gamit ang mga salita at tikas na inalmirolan. Suot ang mga barong na, gaya ng kanilang pananalita at tikas, naninigas. Tuyot na tuyot. Sagana lang sa kumpas at angas. Kahit pa pinilit ng tagapagsanay na kesyo lagyan dapat ng  damdamin at buhay, dapat umaapaw. Panalo. Sa oras na isinusulat ko ito, nakompromiso na ako sa tatlong paaralan. Ako ang kanilang naging at magiging bisitang pandangal daw. Emphasis on “dangal.” Yayks.

Pero wala, tunay na wala pa rin ang ibig sabihin kung inensayo lang ang wika para sa tatlong hurado ng timpalak. Para sa audience na napilitang makinig dahil inobliga ng titser, pinasulat ng reaction paper, tungkol sa sinabi ni, ahm, sino na nga uli ang speaker? 

Paano ba kasi, lutang na lutang ang pagiging hindi natural. At ano ba iyang damdaming ’yan? Sa totoo lang, wala silang kamalay-malay dahil nakamolde ang kanilang dapat isulat buhat sa teksbuk na inaamag. Sa karamihan, mahalaga lang ang medalya, ang certificate of appreciation sa titser na tagapayo. Basta nakasunod sa memo. Tapos.   

Ayos na. Kumpleto na ang ritwal ng Buwan ng Wika na naging novelty at trivial na pagdiriwang na lamang. Ilang araw na lang, Setyembre na. Makikinig na tayo sa mga mapandustang kanta ni Jose Mari Chan hinggil sa walang hanggang pagdurusa ng mga kabataang ito: “Whenever I see girls and boys selling lanterns on the street....”  Pariringgan na tayo ng mga mall na mag-impok para bilhin ang kanilang mga “we’ve got it all for you” para sa minamahal mo.

Pero, mind you, sa kabila ng sinabi ko, gusto ko pa rin ang may Buwan ng Wika sa ating bansa. Marami mang tumutuligsa (dahil sa bukod sa nabanggit ko nang gawing novelty ang okasyon, mayroong mga ayaw na tawaging Filipino ang pambansang wika na kesyo Tagalog lang naman daw talaga ang pinagbatayan ng “pambansang” wika, Tagalog-centricity raw, na nagdidikta sa lehitimo rin namang wika ng mga rehiyon na umangkop at magbago, parang ganyan), gusto kong may pinag-uusapan, may debate tuwing Agosto. Namumulat tayo kahit papaano sa isyu ng wika, kultura, at kasaysayan. Maiba man lang sa showbiz at pulitikang parang showbiz na rin sa kasalukuyan. 

Gusto ko ang Buwan ng Wika dahil nagkakaroon ako ng pagkakataong mag-usisa. Oo nga’t alam na nating mahalagang daluyan ng impormasyon ang wika, mawawala ba ito kung hindi natin papansinin at kikilalanin tuwing Agosto? Siyempre hindi. Wala nang makagagapos sa kahit kaninong magpausbong ng mga kaibhan ng wika. Wala nang makapipigil na mag-loanword na, sa totoo lang, noon pa mang binabalangkas natin ang polisiyang pangwika, puro hiram na salita na ang gamit natin. Na, sa katagalan, tinawag na lang nating sariling atin.

Sa mga ganitong pagkakataon, nasa kritikal akong posisyon. Nasa uugod-ugod na akademya habang nagsusulat sa Rappler na akala mo nagra-rap. Nagtuturo, gumagabay, nangangaral sa kung paano ang maayos na pagpapahayag. Hindi lang iyong basta na lang naiintindihan. Dahil, gaya ng kahit anong wika, hindi lamang ito salita, hindi lamang grupo ng mga simbolo at espasyong nakapagitan. Hindi tunog na arbitraryo. May lugod ang wikang nakapagpapahayag ng mas malalim na nararamdaman. Mas may kabuluhan. Hindi iyong “you know, like, di bah, you know what I mean naman?” 

Hindi. Kaya nga ako nangangaral. Hindi kita pipiliting mamilipit kapipilipino (panalo ang aliterasyong ito!). Hindi kita pagbabawalang umingles. Basta ayusin mo. Basta matatas. Basta makahulugan at magkakaunawaan tayo nang lubos. Tangay pati ang damdamin at kaibuturan ng sinasabi. Hindi nga iyong “Y’know what I mean” lang. 

Dahil, sa totoo lang, mahirap diktahan ang isang indibidwal na umaasa sa galing sa wika ang kabuhayan. O kakawing ng wika ang trabahong naglalagay ng laman sa hapag-kainan, di ba, mga sir at ma’am? Lalo kung Ingles ang wikang iyon. Pero ayaw na ayaw ko rin naman na pilitin mong umingles (gaya ng ginagawa ng ilang tampalasang iskuwelahan) ang isang batang malinaw namang nakapagpapahayag ng damdamin sa kahit anong wikang kaniyang kinalakhan. 

Mabuti sana kung ultimong nagtitinda ng samalamig at pisbol sa tarangkahan ng paaralan ay umiingles nang tama, emphasis on “umiingles nang tama.” Pero baka nga ang mismong titser ay hindi. Like, you know what I mean. 

Hayaan munang tuklasin ng bata ang mundo niya; ang matuto gamit ang wikang sinasalita niya sa panaginip, sa paghalughog sa kaluluwa. Filipino language man ito or otherwise. 

Hindi baleng maging bihasa sa anumang wika. Ang masama, tulad ng nangyayari sa kasalukuyan, ay iyong walang kakayahang isatinig ang kaniyang nararamdaman. Like, you know what I mean. Puro na lang you know what I mean. O gumawa ng meme.

Gusto ko rin namang malinang ang kakayahan ng marami sa atin sa ibang wikang ito. Malaking bagay na, for practical purposes, especially at this age of fluctuating intelligence of people in power, maging magaling kang mang-insulto sa anumang wikang gustuhin mo. Dahil ito ang tumatalab. Ito ang nakapagpapagalaw. Ito ang makapaghihimagsik. Dahil kung malabo ang lahat dahil kulang ang kakayahan mo sa kahit anong wika, ano pa ba, like, it’s always you know what I mean. It’s so blurry, like, you know what, this won’t pass as a decent entry to an essay writing contest ngayong Buwan ng Wikang Pambansa nor forevs. – Rappler.com 

Bukod sa pagtuturo ng creative writing, pop culture, and research sa Unibersidad ng Santo Tomas, 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.

Our so-called political parties form and recede quickly like mushrooms in the political field.

We had the KBL for Marcos, LP for Ninoy Aquino, UNIDO for Laurel, Lakas-NUCD for Ramos, LABAN for Mitra, KAMPI for Arroyo, PMP for Erap, NPC for Cojuangco, Nacionalista for Laurel and later for Villar, UNA for Binay, and PDP for Pimentel.

These so-called political parties are no more than mere personifications of dominant politicians to whom they are closely identified.   They are formed usually for the politician with presidential ambitions prior to a presidential election or during the tenure of said politician later sitting as president.  

But our recent political history saw the emergence of a new kind of political dynamics that is a marked departure from traditional party politics.   Recently, politics has resembled the popular basketball game played in far-flung barangays where players just group together into a team and then play against another team.

We saw this political phenomenon in the team of the senatorial candidates of GMA in the midterm elections during her  presidency.  In the last national elections, we saw this as well in the team of senatorial candidates of Grace Poe dubbed as “Galing at Talino.”  Not satisfied with their Liberal Party, senatorial candidates of PNoy called themselves “Daang Matuwid” team.  

Recently, we are regaled by what the national opposition is calling itself as the “Resistance” team.  Not to be outdone, the pro-Duterte forces, led by Sara, boasted of their own team dubbed as “Tapang at Malasakit.”  Even more, a Davao-based team led by Sara Duterte was formed and dubbed as a Hugpong ng Pagbabago, which is touted to be the current political party of President Duterte.

Meantime, the PDP of Pimentel recently has fallen from grace, dissipated and fragmented with the downfall of its key leaders, Koko Pimentel and Pantaleon Alvarez,  from their mighty pedestals.  This emerging team led by Sara Duterte has taken over the reins of power with the ascendancy of GMA as Speaker of the House, which could eventually lead to the consolidation of power in this team spearheaded by Sara and GMA.

Meantime, the national opposition has not yet come up with its own final team for the upcoming elections, although the “Resistance” is being touted as its team name.  From the looks of it, this emerging team is being composed of the remaining core members of the Liberal Party which appears to be its dominant force led ostensibly by Leni Robredo.   

It remains to be seen if this opposition team is prepared to be in coalition with the more disciplined and ideologically based groups and political parties aligned with the Left.

Our multi-party politics is weird, comical, and farcical.  Once a president is elected, the politicians immediately, like in a bandwagon, switch political allegiance by joining his hitherto ragtag political party.  It so happens that the president’s ramshackle political party is then transmogrified into a dominant political party. This may partly be attributed to the popular culture in basketball where players and fans, naturally, grovel to form part of the winning team.

FVR had a ragtag Lakas-NUCD which later reigned supreme.  The LP also was almost extinct until PNoy, by happenstance, won. Recently, Duterte used a moribund PDP-Laban which later secured a legislative supermajority due to instant massive party defections mainly from PNoy’s LP.

Our political party system has been in an abject state of infantile stagnation.  It has been slowly but forcefully eroded over time to the point that its replacement by the team patterned after the basketball team has emerged as a ridiculous fixture in our politics, which may be attributable to the mass appeal and fanatical popularity among Filipinos of  the game of basketball.

Our political parties, if ever they can be called as such, are nothing but mere political brand names just like a commercial brand in an advertisement prominently displayed in ubiquitous billboards.  They are a mere extension of the name and identity of the dominant politician for whose personal grand political, nay presidential, ambition they are being peddled.

Ideally, political parties are platforms for mobilization of public support for a political program for the acquisition of power, making them a critical component in a representative democracy.   But a question must be asked.  Do political parties really matter in our kind of democracy where even the politicians themselves roundly flout the very concept of political parties by forming teams instead as in a basketball game and worse like mushrooms which sprout just as quickly as it later recedes into oblivion?

It may be too cynical to point this out, but it can be said without fear of contradiction that our political culture, which is beguiled more by celebrity and star power than by platform, is downright incompatible with the so-called political party.  As shown by modern phenomenon, political players, like in a basketball game, can just call out for teammates, form a team, and play against other teams.

Instead of registering and accrediting political parties, the Comelec can just require these teams to register as ad hoc groups and approve their team names like brands in commercial advertisements.  After all, that is what politics is all about in our weird tradition, that is, the advertisement to win votes for a political brand name.

In the same vein, politicians can just run as independent candidates.  Politicians need not resort to the political hypocrisy of running under a so-called political party which, after all, serves no residual political purpose.  This could usher in a new electoral regime of independent candidacy. – Rappler.com