The mandatory testing for pregnancy by the Pines City Colleges (PCC) of all their dentistry, nursing, and pharmacy students is a classic illustration of the proverb that says, “the road to hell is paved with good intentions.”

Women’s and privacy rights advocates began criticizing the policy when a letter calling for the mandatory tests dated October 25, 2018, and signed by PCC vice president for administration Maria Regina Prats and school physician Dr. Aurelia Navarro, began circulating in social media. 

In a Facebook post, the PCC claims that the intention is to protect mother and fetus.

The pertinent portions of the clinician’s manual of the PCC indeed states that a pregnant student cannot enroll in clinical dentistry, roentgenology, anesthesiology, endodontics, hospital dentistry and community dentistry II and III. The manual goes on to say that if the woman is found to be pregnant at the start or in the middle of the semester, she is considered dropped from the subjects mentioned and must be on leave of absence unless she has general education/ cultural subjects.

Illegal policy

For all of its good intentions, the policy is wrong.

It violates the spirit of several Philippine laws seeking non-discrimination of women in education as well as a specific provisions of the Magna Carta of Women. In particular, Sec 13 (c) states: “Expulsion and non-readmission of women faculty due to pregnancy outside of marriage shall be outlawed. No school shall turn out or refuse admission to a female student solely on the account of her having contracted pregnancy outside of marriage during her term in school.”

I would argue that in the likelihood that at these last stages of acquiring a degree (clinical subjects come last in nursing and dentistry curricula) the policy effectively bars many pregnant women from enrolling for at least a year. 

PCS is also in violation of the Data Privacy Act, a matter I shall discuss later in this article.

Good intentions?

One can also wonder whether the intentions for finding out if the woman is pregnant is really all noble because the letter states that the price of the test to be charged to the student’s account is P150. Likhaan, an organization I work with that seeks to provide poor women with reproductive health services including maternal care, buys its pregnancy test at P550 per box of 100. This means that each pregnancy test is only worth P11.

What is also puzzling about the intentions of Pines City Colleges is that for an institution to be “the premier institution offering allied health courses in the Cordilleras,” it isn’t very evidence-based on these restrictions. If one were to benchmark it’s policy with other institutions we should note that UP PGH and St. Louis University School of Nursing have no similar policies.

Let me take just one of the courses being denied to pregnant students, roentgenology. In layman’s terms this is about X-rays and similar procedures involving radiation. While it is a common misconception that X-rays cause risks to the fetus, evidence shows the contrary. Radiation exposure for all human beings does carry risks at certain dosages, but standard protection procedures in roentgenology including specified distance from the source of radiation and the use of protective gear makes the risks negligible for all personnel.

Violates right to privacy

Pines City College cannot actually show evidence that the risk they are protecting against exists. They cannot also show evidence that the provision of proper safeguards does not take away those risks.

And, even if for some strange reason, medical science does not behave in the same way at PCC, it must provide alternative learning activities to students instead of disenfranchising them merely because they happen to be pregnant.

Because PCC cannot prove that there is a real need for this pregnancy test, it is indeed in violation of the data privacy act which prohibits the processing of “sensitive personal information and privileged information.” Its defense that students agree to this policy cannot hold because the law demands that such consent be given freely. Consent imposed in this way, is not free and informed consent.

If PCC even bothered to do a simple google search, it would have easily found a better-crafted set of guidelines that does not violate the students rights but achieves the goal of providing risk information and protection of pregnant students, such as this one.

I am glad that the National Privacy Commission and the Commission on Human Rights have begun their investigation.

For its own sake, I suggest that Pines City College withdraw this discriminatory, judgmental and patronizing policy. Otherwise, I hope our government regulatory agencies throw the book at it. – Rappler.com

Sylvia Estrada Claudio is a doctor of medicine who also holds a PhD in psychology. She is co-founder and currently Chair of the Board of Directors of Likhaan Center for Women’s Health, Inc.

This Sunday, November 25, the 2018 bar examinations will conclude, officially signaling the start of the waiting period for the 8 bar examiners to check and grade all the notebooks – a process that will, on the average, take the next 4 to 5 months to complete.

The bar examinations are notoriously difficult and the preparations for taking them – 5 months of review with life being placed in suspended animation – highly stressful. Yet, the number of bar exam hopefuls has increased every year (except in 2016). This year’s 8,701 admitted candidates is the highest since 2013:

• 2017 – 7,227 candidates were admitted
• 2016 – 6,831
• 2015 – 7,146
• 2014 – 6,344
• 2013 – 5,593

These numbers show that, despite the low national passing average every year (with the sole exception of 2016 (59.06%), taking the bar exams is still a big deal.

This week’s “Deep Dive” is into the annual bar examinations and why they are not (or shouldn’t be) a big deal.

Open-ended questions, handwritten answers

The bar examinations are the only professional licensure exam not administered by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). It is administered by the Supreme Court under Rule 138 of the Rules of Court.

It is the only examination that still uses open-ended questions, not standardized or multiple-choice questions (although this was done in 2011 and partly in 2012), and is still the only examination that requires the examinees to answer by writing in long hand.

It consists of 8 subjects and is given in 4 Sundays in November. Examinees are required to have a general average of 75% in all 8 subjects, without falling below 50% in any subject (although this has recently been waived). Each subject is given a specific relative weight, thus:

• Political and International Law, Civil Law, Mercantile Law – 15%
• Labor and Social Legislation, Taxation, and Criminal Law – 10%
• Remedial Law – 20%
• Legal Ethics – 5%

The passing percentage, set at 75%, may also be lowered at the discretion of the Supreme Court en banc upon recommendation of the bar chair.

The annual series of examinations is chaired by a Supreme Court associate justice, who is given a free hand to choose the 8 examiners, all presumed to be experts in their respective fields, to formulate the questions. The final questions will then be chosen by the chair of the bar examinations from the list of questions submitted and included in the examination to be given for each particular subject.

The human factor

The bar examinations are the only licensure exam where the human factor is highly significant.

Each bar examiner is asked by the chair to submit a list of handwritten questions, anywhere from 100 to 150 (depending on the chair’s preference), in the examiner’s field.

In 2014, as bar examiner in criminal law, and again in 2015, as bar examiner in labor law, I was asked to submit 100 handwritten questions for criminal law and labor law. From the questions submitted for each field, the chair then chooses the final questions that she or he wants to include in the final examination for each subject in the early morning of each Sunday. This is a security measure to ensure against leakages.

After each exam, the notebooks for each subject are given to the examiners in batches, confidentially. The identity of the examiner is known only to the chair, the bar confidant, and a small, discreet group of people with “need to know.” Again, this is a security measure to guard against undue pressure that may be exerted on the examiner. The examiner must personally check by hand each and every notebook.

Because the human factor is so significant – the examiner may be checking anywhere from 250 to 500 notebooks a week, depending on how fast she or he checks – a great deal depends on luck, not just knowledge. A great deal also depends on penmanship. As a former examiner in 2014 and 2015, I found that it was much easier to give points, even token points, for answers that were legible, even if not completely correct, than for answers that were barely readable.

Sui generis

The bar examinations are also the only exam completely sui generis – meaning, completely unique and different every year.  

The bar chair is new every year and she or he is free, at her or his level, to introduce innovations, changes, and improvements that do not require the approval of the Supreme Court en banc. For instance, the use of transparent bags for easier security spotting was implemented in 2014 during Associate Justice Peralta’s term as bar chair.

The chair appoints the examiners, entirely at his or her discretion. The bar chair has discretion to fix the scope and field of questions (but this was done, in the past years, in consultation with the law deans), and to select the questions that will come out.

Because it is completely sui generis every year, it is difficult to spot trends and patterns other than to look at which areas of law are asked more than others. It is also difficult to anticipate the questions themselves as even the manner of formulating the questions may vary from year to year.

With the exception of 2011, when the Court allowed an experiment with multiple-choice questions (MCQs) as the predominant mode of questioning, the bar has always favored open-ended situationer or problem-type questions that require the examinee to articulate his or her answer and the reasons for the answer. The lack of predictability in the manner the questions are formulated every year makes it a challenging exam to prepare for.

What’s the best test of good lawyer?

At bottom, the bar examinations are still just a licensure exam; for law students, a necessary hazard to overcome on their way to a career in the legal profession. The bar exams should be, and are, no different from the medical, engineering, accountancy licensure examinations; yet, the bar is the only examination that enjoys prominent media coverage, with the results being highly-anticipated and flashed live from a big screen at the Supreme Court, with the top 10 most successful examinees being interviewed live and featured prominently.

So, what’s the big deal about the bar exams?

For law schools, it is a great marketing tool if their graduates place in the top 10 or have a high institutional passing percentage. It is great bragging rights for one year, until short-term memory fades, or until the next bar examinations start.

For law students who pass, it is a big deal because it ends their waiting period – after 8 (or more) years of formal education with 4 (possibly more) years of undergraduate education and 4 (possibly more) years of law school – before they can officially join the legal profession. It is the second to the last gate before the final door to legal practice is opened – the taking of the oath.

For law students who fail, it may be the signal that life must go on – perhaps a life not in the law, for, certainly, there is more to life than law or becoming a lawyer.

I wish I could say that the bar examinations are a complete measure of legal competence, character, or even potential. But it is very difficult to say that because they are, at best, simply a measure of a particular year’s test takers, nothing more.

The best test of a good lawyer isn’t the bar exams, it is being able to live up to every word of the oath that is taken, every day. – Rappler.com

Theodore Te, Ted to many, is a human rights lawyer and advocate, law educator, font geek and comic book fan, occasional movie and music reviewer, a life-long Boston Celtics fan and a loud opponent of the death penalty, violations of human rights, government abuse, and social injustice. Deep Dive is his attempt at probing into issues of law and rights, politics and governance (and occasionally entertainment and sports) beyond the headlines, the sound bites, the spin, and the buzz.

Have you ever thought of finding yourself in a situation where you'd be harassed for doing your job or disregarded by your relatives just because your beliefs differed from theirs?

Ten months after the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) revoked Rappler's license to operate, and after the government filed several more cases against the organization, I joined Rappler. It was not a decision made on a whim. I simply believed that it was the perfect time to be a Rappler. (Editor's note: The Court of Appeals did not uphold SEC's order, remanding the case to the commission for a re-investigation.)

It wasn’t a smooth start. Some of my friends and relatives questioned my decision, noting the threats Rappler was facing. “Aren’t you afraid? Hindi ba magiging delikado? Hindi ka ba natatakot?” they asked. (Won't it be dangerous? Aren't you afraid?)

All these questions reached my ears, but none of them discouraged me from pushing through with my decision.

Rappler itself strengthened my resolve to hold the line. How?

Rappler tells the nation’s stories. Not only that, it goes beyond traditional reportage, creating and enabling communities online and offline to take action on issues that matter to them. Its journalists expose the wrongdoing of leaders and hold these leaders accountable.

In 2016, Rappler’s saga began as the administration’s supporters started branding the organization a purveyor of "fake news" just because the news outlet was critical in its reports of the President and his administration. This was echoed by the President himself in 2018, when he called Rappler a "fake news outlet" over a report about his top aide Bong Go. (READ:Bong Go intervenes in P15.5-B project to acquire PH warships)

All those accusations are not true.

Even before deciding to pursue my training application, many told me, even my relatives, that joining the organization was a mistake because they believed that Rappler is “biased."

I even remember having an argument with one of them, who told me that "Rappler is fake news."

I wanted to blow my top, but I realized, would it help? It’s hard to fight with people you love, but by letting them know the truth, I hope that they will learn to trust Rappler someday.

Waking up to threats

During my training, I wrote articles about President Duterte and other key personalities like the Vice President, and because of that, I wasn’t spared from threats and intimidation – the very thing that Rapplers are now still facing.

I never expected to receive threats, but I’ve now experienced waking up to them just because I’m a Rappler. And it's not easy at all. Honestly, it has made my knees crumble.

Doing a job which others deem unpleasant because it doesn’t please the President is tough. To some some extent, it created a rift between me and those closest to my heart. Some of my friends and relatives even skipped greeting me on my birthday last year.

Though I experienced all of these, what makes me stay?

It’s the passion that lives in me and the undying responsibility that all Rapplers hold dear – to promote free and fearless journalism.

In the last few months, without expecting anything in return, I have conquered storms and protests to contribute to their mission to inform the public.

Yes, questions and criticisms continue flowing my way, but I’m certain I will stay.

I am now a Rappler making waves for civic engagement and social change.

For me, this time is the best moment to become a journalist, and it's even more special that I am part of a news organization that continues its fight amid all the intimidation.

Being part of a team whose goal is to inform people rather than to please those in power will allow me to look back years from now and know that, yes, I was one of the journalists who stood up for the truth and who spoke truth to power.

So – to the ultimate question: Is Rappler really biased?

Biased for...

Yes! Since the beginning, the social news network has been biased... biased for the truth. This is the very reason I continue supporting Rappler.

The Pork Barrel scam which was associated with the government’s Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF) became one of the issues that came out during the Aquino administration, and Rappler reported on what people needed to know. (READ:PDAF more than doubled under Aquino)

During the present regime, Rappler stayed with the story on extrajudicial killings in the government’s war against illegal drugs. (READ:IN NUMBERS: The Philippines' 'war on drugs')

The stories that Rappler has produced have ignited a thirst for social change and have caused people to call on both administrations to take concrete steps.

Rappler helped me find my second home. If there’s one thing that I am most grateful for – it is being able to finally smile again knowing that I am doing something for the greater good.

So if you’re going to ask me again about what makes me stay, just look at what Rappler has done  – speaking truth to power, keeping those in power in check.

Truly, everything is worth it. Now, I have a lot of friends and relatives who trust Rappler not only for its truthful stories but for creating the ripples of change we want to see.

Be with us in telling the truth. Continue holding the line. Support free and fearless journalism. – Rappler.com 

What is sociology? How does sociology help our society and relationships?

In this episode of Basagan ng Trip, Leloy Claudio sits down with Bubbles Asor to discuss the importance of sociology and why you should consider it as a course in college. – Rappler.com

The first email came just 3 days after Rappler released part one of an investigative series on abortion.

The 3-part series I penned for Rappler explores the dangerous practices of backstreet abortionists, delves deep into an online forum where women seek abortion services, and reports about a group of underground doctors who do the procedure safely– but in top secret. In Catholic-majority Philippines, abortion is deeply stigmatized and strictly illegal.

The email I received, dated Thursday, August 16, was 800+ words long. It was studded with YouTube and article links, and while there was no personalized note except for “Ms. Natashya Gutierrez” in the beginning of the email, the message was clear: the sender denounced my piece.

The sender sent links to “the teachings on the Antichrist in the Cathecism of the Catholic Church” and a piece on a person converting to Catholicism. The email quoted a book, saying “the media have conditioned society to listen to what it wants to hear,” and said Quebec is self-destructing because of low fertility rates.

And, as with any ultra-religious message, it took the chance to denounce homosexuality – even when it was completely unrelated to the topic.

I've been used to receiving hate messages, death threats even, accusations of being anti-Christ for voicing more liberal perspectives, and expected more to come. As if conditioned from years of online harassment, I was unbothered.

But that was the first and last of those type of messages. I was not prepared for the emails that followed.

Since the first part was published on August 13, I have received a consistent stream of tens of messages on various platforms – via email, and on my personal Facebook and Instagram pages – from a slew of Filipinos of various ages. They come from different parts of the country – Manila, Laguna, Davao – and while most are from women, I’ve also received a couple from men, messaging in behalf of their pregnant partners.

All were desperate cries for help: where – they begged – could they find the safe abortionists, the underground doctors, I wrote about?

'PLEASE HELP'

You could hear the despair from the email titles alone.

One was in caps, with my name spelled out: “PLEASE HELP me Ms. Natashya!”

The sender was a 24-year-old mother of two. She explained that having a 5th child was not feasible for her family. 

Another wrote me 4 times: “I am on the verge of [a] mental breakdown right now and nobody knows about this. I really need your help. Hope you will help me. Please... I am begging you… I badly need this.”

One other woman said she needed the contact of doctors who would help her, or else she'd have to risk her life with backstreet abortionists.

Some, completely at a loss, found an ally in me, sharing their stories.

“My wife and I just found out that she was pregnant last night, but right now we feel we are mentally and financially incapable of having another child. The problem is, we don't know where to go to get a safe abortion,” said one sender.

“I know you probably got a lot of emails like this ever since you wrote that article, but we are really desperate, and we don't know who else to ask. We don't want anyone else to know about this, so we can't ask any of our friends.”

Another man shared his predicament. “Your article gave us hope that there is a way for us to be helped out by medical professionals that will check on the medical status of my girlfriend even after the procedure,” he wrote. “I hope that you can help us out with this endeavor."

And still another young woman: “I can share my story how this happened and how this guy left me alone without anyone knowing, [not] even my family about this. I know it's my fault that I trusted him. Please help me.”

Yet the most striking email was from a young, 15-year-old teenage boy, sent in the evening of November 20.

"My girlfriend (soon-to-be partner may face an unwanted pregnancy. She’s delayed for almost two months. We will do pregnancy test on Thursday to confirm)," he wrote. "We are still a student and not yet ready to have a child. Due to that, I’m thinking of going to Quiapo to look for recommendations where we could meet people that can induce abortion (unsafe and illegal)."

Quiapo in Metro Manila, is notorious for backstreet abortionists and for selling dangerous abortion pills and concoctions.

"But, of course, I cannot manage to risk it. My girlfriend’s life is at stake and I will not let anything bad happen to her," he said. "I know the confidentiality of their identities and services must be remained, but we’re talking about life here."

He then added, in all caps and in Filipino, "I AM HOPING TO ASK FOR INFORMATION ON HOW WE CAN CONTACT THE DOCTORS OR THEIR SECRETARY."

(UMAASA PO AKO NA MAKAHINGI NG INFORMATION KUNG PAANO PO NAMIN MAKO-CONTACT YUNG DOCTORS OR THEIR SECRETARY.)

"I look forward to hearing from you soon."

Paranoia, sadness

The notes were from strangers who had no one to turn to but me, another stranger – in what could be the most difficult time of their lives. They felt like secret mail – raw, personal writings that I didn't have the right to see. 

The messages broke my heart.

I teetered between paranoia – were these underground cops, waiting to arrest me if I referred them to abortionists? – sadness, and anger. And always, sympathy. It was painful to read their notes, sent in hopes of a response, to a person they had never met, never spoke to, wondering if I had received them.

I did. To all those who sent letters, I did.

Though I want badly to reply and extend my help, I am aware that even referrals to abortionists are illegal in the Philippines.

I went so far as to get a lawyer’s advice. The lawyer warned me to be “generic, safe and provide sufficient tips.”

The lawyer suggested a reply encouraing them to research international reproductive rights organizations, go to countries where it is legal, ask OB-gynecologists for referrals, or to seek crisis counseling from NGOs.

Nothing specific, nothing direct, no names or contact information – for the safety of both myself and the senders.

It frustrates me that there is nothing I can do for them, and for this, I am sorry to those who wrote.

What now?

I’ve spent many days thinking of the senders behind these notes. I think of them often, the women, their partners, their health.

Are they okay? Did they choose other, less safe options? How far along are they now, if at all? Will they find the doctors I wrote about? Do they check their emails, their Facebook, their Instagram, hoping to hear from me?

I am saddened that because of the profound stigma against abortion and the restrictive abortion laws of the government, they cannot seek help from friends or family or their doctors or the state – they have to turn to a journalist.

Is this the Philippines we want? One that ignores the desperation and the pleas of young women who are not ready for children, whether emotionally or physically?

One that judges and stigmatizes pregnant women?

One that decides what a woman can and can’t do with her body?

Amid the notes of distress, I managed to find a ray of light in one email. The note was signed with the sender's full name, telephone number, and hospital address. 

"Good morning Ms. Gutierrez!" it started. "I came across your article and would request for a contact number to these group of doctors."

It added, "I am a doctor wanting to help some patients in their needs." 

As with all the other notes, while I cannot reply with the answer they want to hear, this, at least, gave me hope. – Rappler.com

We need to talk more about President Rodrigo Duterte’s excessive pandering to Chinese interests.

This week, after Chinese President Xi Jinping’s historic 2-day state visit, a total of 29 deals were signed between the Philippine and Chinese governments. (READ: LIST: Deals signed during Xi Jinping’s trip to Philippines)

Most of these were economic in nature – touching on areas like infrastructure and finance – but they all signal ever-deepening ties between our two countries.

Yet there are reasons to believe that Xi Jinping is no ordinary ally, and these are no ordinary deals.

In this article I explain why dealing with the Chinese government might not only end up benefitting China more, but also harming Filipinos’ interests in the long run.

Belt and Road Initiative

First of all, let’s be clear on one thing: China is currently on a bid for global economic expansion and dominance.

Under Xi Jinping’s leadership, the overarching foreign policy of the Chinese government is called the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI): a $1-trillion plan to build massive infrastructure links spanning Asia-Pacific, Africa, the Middle East, and Europe.

China often trumpets BRI as a way to help cash-strapped developing countries in dire need of finances for their own infrastructure projects.

Because of the relatively easy terms and conditions of these Chinese loans, many poor countries have been more than eager to participate in BRI.

Nepal is one of the latest countries to jump in, with the most audacious project with China being a proposed 72-kilometer railway line that will connect Tibet to Kathmandu and cross the Himalayas. The project is estimated to cost at least $2.5 billion.

Despite the apparent promise of BRI, however, it has caused more trouble than it’s worth in many parts of the world. Let me mention 4 reasons.

First, BRI has a proven capacity to wreak mayhem in the finances of participating countries: more and more have found themselves buried in debt – and therefore beholden – to China.

Some of those that have fallen for China’s so-called “debt-trap diplomacy” include Djibouti, Kenya, Maldives, Turkmenistan, and Venezuela. (READ: What scares me the most about China’s new, ‘friendly’ loans)

Second, in the event they are unable to repay China, these countries are often left with no choice but to give up a slice of their natural resources or strategic assets – even their sovereignty – to China. Effectively, they are collateralizing their resources and rights to gain access to the Chinese loans.

One of the most famous cautionary tales has been Sri Lanka, which was forced to lease out to China its strategic Hambantota Port for 99 years after failing to pay its $1.1-billion debt.

Third, many countries have bemoaned that many BRI projects require that only Chinese workers and specialists be employed, thus excluding local talent.

Fourth, many groups have pointed out that BRI projects – owing to their sheer scale and ambition – often pose threats to the environment and biodiversity.

In Cambodia, for instance, many are wary of the environmental impact of Chinese-backed dams being constructed along the Mekong River.

Meanwhile, the World Wildlife Fund has warned that BRI corridors worldwide overlap with the habitat of some 265 threatened species (including 81 endangered species), thus further threatening them.

Risks for the Philippines

For all intents and purposes, the Philippines has officially joined the global BRI bandwagon.

In fact, one of the agreements signed during Xi Jinping’s Manila visit this week includes a memorandum of understanding (MOU) on “Cooperation on the Belt and Road Initiative.”

But in so doing, the Philippines also assumes the abovementioned risks of participating in the BRI.

First, the government just secured a loan agreement for the New Centennial Water Source-Kaliwa Dam Project, costing P18.7 billion. Before this, the government secured one more loan agreement for the Chico River Pump Irrigation Project, costing P4.4 billion.

Sure, these are not excessively large amounts, and the country’s external debt as a share of the country’s income (or GDP) was just 42% as of last year.

But how many prospective projects are to be financed by Chinese loans in the future? Combined with relatively higher interest rates, the growing number of Chinese loan agreements could harm our country’s finances if left unchecked.

This is especially the case now that the government’s budget deficit (or revenue shortfall) is swelling, the trade deficit (or gap between imports and exports) is widening, and gross international reserves are dwindling.

Second, the government has also engaged in an MOU on oil and gas development in the West Philippine Sea, even as China continues to aggressively (and unlawfully) militarize vast swaths of it with impunity.

On November 8, China reportedly drove away a Filipino TV crew in Panatag Shoal, saying, “Without the permission of China, you cannot carry out the interview here.”

What’s more, Duterte and his officials – of all people – seem to have given up entirely on our stake in the West Philippine Sea. Presidential Spokesperson Salvador Panelo recently went on to say that the country’s legal win in the arbitral tribunal is virtually “useless.” Anyway, “there is no power on earth presently that can enforce it.”

What exactly is at stake in the West Philippine Sea? Studies suggest that, aside from sizeable fishing stocks and territories the size of 3 Quezon Cities, it might also contain as much as 130 billion barrels of oil (about the size of the oil deposits in Kuwait and the UAE combined).

By reneging on their constitutional duty to protect Philippine sovereignty, the Duterte government is effectively selling out our vast resources in the West Philippine Sea in exchange for a smattering of loans and infra projects. Needless to say, this is a deeply unfair bargain.

Third, China might also impose that only Chinese workers be hired to construct BRI projects in the Philippines.

Even Budget Secretary Ben Diokno once admitted he doesn’t care if the projects under Build, Build, Build make use of workers from other countries, as long as they are done.

Right now you can already see Chinese architects and engineers working on the P4.6-billion Binondo-Intramuros Bridge Project (which, incidentally, the local Filipino-Chinese community says they do not need).

So when government says that Build, Build, Build will create Jobs, Jobs, Jobs, does it mean jobs for foreigners after all?

Fourth, some of the China-backed projects in the Philippines also pose environmental problems.

For example, the New Centennial Water Source-Kaliwa Dam Project is now being opposed on many fronts because of the environmental damage (and the displacement of indigenous people) it’s expected to cause.

Chinese troops are also reportedly destroying coral reefs and picking off giant clams in Scarborough Shoal as they expand their illegal militarization of the area.

Bending over backwards

It’s clear as day that President Duterte is bending over to positively supine lengths just to please and pander to Chinese interests, specifically those of Xi Jinping and his government.

Ordinarily, deals with foreign governments should be little cause for concern. But China’s abiding interests not just in the Philippines but also in the rest of the world – as embodied by BRI – give us extra reason to suspect the deals we enter into with them. Given China's spotty track record, such deals may only prove inimical to the long-run interests of Filipinos.

At the very least, the Duterte government must pause and consult the Filipino people about the increasing number of Chinese deals, out of sheer prudence and transparency, if anything else.

But by now we know that prudence and transparency are not the strengths of the current administration. That could be the worst problem of all. – 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) and Usapang Econ (usapangecon.com).

Sa nakalipas na mga buwan naging maugong sa balita ang inflation rate, isang estadistika na sumusukat sa bilis ng pagtaas ng presyo ng mga bilihin. Nadama natin ang walang humpay na pagtaas ng inflation sa presyo ng bigas, gulay, produktong petrolyo, pamasahe, atbp.

Ngunit paano nga ba sinusukat ng gobyerno ang inflation? Gaano kalala ang sitwasyon ngayon, at ano ang mga salik o factor sa likod nito?

Panoorin ang explainer video na ito ni JC Punongbayan, PhD candidate sa University of the Philippines School of Economics at opinion writer ng Rappler. – Rappler.com

No matter how poor a semblance of the real deal elections have become, they always inspire hope for change. And, because that's especially true in our case, we’re able to overcome our own deep distrust in them.

That no one loses in our elections and that one only gets cheated may not be the rule, but certainly no small amount of electoral cheating goes on. Not even presidential contests are excepted from it, and two cases are particularly shameless, one favoring the dictator Ferdinand Marcos, the other Gloria Arroyo.

Electoral challenges take so long to be resolved that by the time one is won hardly any time is left of the challenger's stolen term. If some redress was finally had in Marcos' case it’s only because the process, rigged for him in his 14 years of martial law, was short-circuited: in a show of people power, we poured out onto the streets to bring him down and install his cheated rival, Corazon Aquino, in his place. But his heirs have managed still to stay in power, and done so still by virtue of the vote – our vote!

Arroyo's own presidential run left no proud memories. Vice president to Joseph Estrada, a former movie actor who has built his own political dynasty, she succeeded him when he was ousted as president, also by people power. He was subsequently tried and convicted, but got a new lease on his political career when he was pardoned by his successor. He is now mayor of Manila.

After serving out the forfeited second half of Estrada's term, his pardoner was herself found to have conspired with an electoral commissioner to rig the vote that would extend her presidency by an elective 6-year term. Cornered with damning evidence, she confessed to the fraud, but got off – on a mere apology. Possibly because of our experience with Estrada, we would rather take a chance on a cheat than another actor. So we picked Arroyo over Fernando Poe Jr, and got ourselves another bad deal. 

Arroyo ended up being indicted for plunder herself, but was let off again, this time by a Supreme Court whose majority owed her their appointments. Thus restored – again like Estrada – to eligibility for elective office (although not the presidency, which the Constitution restricts to a single term), she won a seat for her district in the Lower House. She is now Speaker.

Like the proverbial birds of the same feather, the Arroyos, the Estradas, and the Marcoses flock behind the presidency of another dynastic patriarch – Rodrigo Duterte. All 4 dynasties are fielding family and surrogates for the midterm polls in May, looking for the win that will allow them to consolidate power decisively, if not perpetually, and escape accountability. 

There lies the challenge of the midterms. And there, too, lies our hope of self-redemption from our habitual defaults and plain bad choices of leaders.

Actually, the midterms constitute a referendum on Duterte. Necessarily his flock also gains or loses depending on which way the vote goes. In any case, the issues are too stark to give any reasonable electorate any difficulty making up its mind. For one thing, Duterte has not one single achievement to show after more than two years as president. In fact, his has been a regime of high crimes, of which one is already a hanging offense: treason, for ceding our resource-rich western seas to the Chinese. 

In some ways, he has outdone his professed idol, Marcos. A mere 9 months in office, he put the largest of the country's 3 main islands, predominantly Muslim Mindanao, under martial law on the fashionable pretext of Islamic State terrorism. And he has been reviving the communist scare to justify his express plan to expand the emergency to the rest of the country. It is to that end apparently that he has been recycling newly retired generals into the civilian bureaucracy and bribing the soldiers and the police with doubled salaries and a promise of protection from prosecution.

From the start, Duterte has left no doubt he would not be constrained by the rule of law. Upon taking office, he declared a war on drugs, and within one year it accounted for more than 26,000 kills (which appeared in a report published by the Office of the President as among its “2017 key accomplishments,” a Freudian slip apparently, since the count has not been updated officially); yet, drugs continue to slip past Customs – a recent shipment was valued at more than P6 billion, itself only a part, according to investigators, of a larger shipment worth 4 times that.

As typical with autocracies, corruption and cronyism are widespread under Duterte’s regime, and critics are persecuted.

Even more spectacular, he manages to conduct himself in the presidency not fully conscious – which makes one wonder whether sleeping on the job could be a legal defense in his unique case. The habit, which his apologists glamorize as “power napping,” was in fact revealed to fellow heads of state by his no-shows at certain events in a recent summit.

Duterte is one malignant phenomenon such as not seen since Ferdinand Marcos, and we are now being asked to promote it by voting for his candidates. In other words, we are facing an all-too-familiar test; we are being brought back to an ugly past for the basic lesson we failed to learn from it. – Rappler.com

The serious anxiety many Filipinos have with charter change and federalism is caused by the reality that traditional political families control the Philippine political system.

Simply looking at the composition of the House of Representatives, with its unprecedented 14 deputy speakers, validates the fear that feudal masters will lord over the potential constituent states of the new federal republic.

Sadly, such uneasiness is aggravated by one of the key findings of the study conducted by the Ateneo School of Government, Dynasties Thrive under Decentralization in the Philippines (Working Paper 17-003), to wit:

“All of the top positions in each major local government unit appear to be dominated by dynasties (over 81% of governors and vice governors, and around 78% of representatives).”

Indeed, political dynasties have made local governance a family enterprise. This phenomenon is summed up perfectly by respected Mindanao civil society activist, Guiamel Alim, as“clan-inclusive government.” And because political elites in the Philippines are so firmly entrenched in their positions of power, political competition at the local level is essentially a farce.

This reign of dynastic politicians has led to the enculturation of a myopic and parochial governance mindset. Very clearly demonstrated by incumbent local politicos who can only be bothered by short-term projects that have an immediate and perceptible impact (i.e., basketball courts and waiting sheds).

However, there are a few notable exceptions who have displayed genuine leadership. There are up and coming politicians who are members of political dynasties but have stayed true to the tenets of good governance – even at the expense of their family’s political interests.

Nonetheless, political power concentrated in select families has meant accountability in local government is no longer a standard for public service. Obviously, when this happens, unabated graft and corruption infects local governance itself. It is worthy to note that a significant percentage of complaints filed with the Office of the Ombudsman are against local officials.

This lack of leadership accountability has then led to the current pathology in Philippine local politics, appropriately described by political commentator Alex Lacson as “small dictatorships.”

Economic monopoly

Worth noting that the monopoly of political power leads to a monopoly of economic opportunities. Case in point is the difficulty of a very popular fast-food franchise to secure a business permit in a city in the Visayas. Some residents there say this is because the current family in power owns the franchise for the more popular competitor. Admittedly anecdotal only, but stories like this one are told all over the country.

Correspondingly, studies show that lower standards of living, lower human development, and higher levels of deprivation and inequality persist in the districts governed by local leaders who are members of a political dynasty. A more alarming development is that the “fattest” dynasties – those with the most family members in office – are ensconced in the poorest parts of the country.

And worse, as local communities continue to suffer inept and corrupt dynastic leaders, those who can push for reforms but do not have the inherited political advantage are effectively denied the right to run for public office because of the monarchical nature of local government. 

Federalism will work only if...

Pertinently, President Rodrigo Duterte’s very own Consultative Committee on constitutional reform sees political dynasties as a bane in a federal system. They reaped public approval when they voted to institute a self-executory provision regulating political dynasties in their proposed federal constitution.

And the chairman of the committee, former chief justice Reynato Puno, was absolutely correct when he declared that such a provision is a condition “sine qua non” in establishing a federal system in the Philippines. Without it, any kind of federal system established in the Philippines will fail.

But incumbent lawmakers have ignored Puno’s warning. Immediately after the submission of the Consultative Committee’s Bayanihan Federalism draft, some members of the House of Representatives openly expressed serious apprehension about the self-executory provision regulating political dynasties.

They even predicted that this will be the first provision removed if ever they convene as a constituent assembly. And their prophesy has come true in the form of Resolution of both Houses (RBH) No. 15, a draft constitution where there is not only an absence of a self-executory prescription regulating political dynasties, but the provision setting a term limit for lawmakers has also been removed!

Therefore, federalism advocates, specifically the Inter-agency Task Force on Federalism (IATF) organized by President Duterte, face a huge challenge – how to convince Filipinos that federalism will not further strengthen the grip of political dynasties on local governance.

A good starting point for the IATF is to openly admit that a transition to a federal system cannot be bound by a constricting timetable (i.e., within the term of President Duterte). The administration must rethink plans of “fast-tracking” charter change. Imposing their will on the people will only elicit stronger resistance to federalism as many will see this only as a ploy of dynastic politicians to further strengthen their hold on power.

In this regard, the transition plan proposed by Dr Jose Abueva’s “A Ten-Year Transition Action Plan” should be revisited. The 15-year roadmap for the federalism shift suggested by the National Economic Development Authority should also be considered. The key point here is that the transition schedule must be clearly laid out in the federal charter itself. This is the only way to put the transition process under judicial oversight.

The IATF must also bring Filipinos together to rally behind the federalism initiative. For whatever the final federal design turns out to be, it is the responsibility of the IATF to ensure that there is among the people both a shared understanding of what has been created and a shared commitment to making the new system work.

There is that real danger of course, that the IATF’s work will simply be ignored by Congress just like what they did to the Consultative Committee’s Bayanihan Federalism draft charter.

Indeed, RBH No. 15 is clear proof that dynastic politicians will not hesitate to hijack the federalism agenda to perpetuate themselves in their positions of power. And can we really expect things to change in a federal system with political dynasties lording it over the regions? – Rappler.com

Atty Yusingco is a non-resident research fellow at the Ateneo Policy Center of the Ateneo School of Government.

Whether of Hong Kong Chinese, Mainland Chinese or Chinese-Americans, not to mention the "Chinoys" of the Philippines, the stereotypes of the ethnic Chinese abound on film and in real life. Can a blockbuster movie help change that? That's a question worth pondering as the US film Crazy Rich Asians is poised to open in Mainland China this November 30 and amid the rising visibility of China in the Philippines.

For those who managed to escape the marketing and media frenzy around the film, a brief summary of the movie's plot: Crazy Rich Asians tells the story of native New Yorker and economics professor Rachel Chu (played by Constance Wu) as she accompanies her boyfriend Nick Young (played by Malaysian actor Henry Golding), to his best friend's wedding in Singapore. Little does Rachel know at the film's start what drama lies ahead as only later does she learn that Nick is scion of one of Singapore's wealthiest families and also one of its most sought-after bachelors.

As Nick's mom Eleanor Young (played by Michelle Yeoh) will make pointedly clear at one point in the film, Rachel is not Chinese, but Chinese-American – and one who may well embody all that Young's less-than-positive stereotype of a Chinese-American daughter of immigrants comprises.

It is a tale of the one percent of the one percent.  

The film famously also featured a short but pivotal role by Kris Aquino as a Malay princess, and brought me a mini-bit of social media fame when the Filipina star gave me a shout-out on Instagram.

From heartfelt social media posts by Asian-American celebrities including model Chrissy Teigen and everyday people to widely-watched appearances on mainstream news and entertainment programs by the film's cast, director, and author, the movie has in many ways already contributed to the broadening of the representation of Asians and Asian-Americans in US films. That should also be to the ultimate benefit of the many Filipino-Americans in the television and film industry.

News reports have covered the subsequent go-aheads of a range of film and television projects involving Asian-American writers, directors, and actors.

New stereotypes?

Yet, in parts of Asia including Singapore where I am now based with an economic think tank after having served in the Philippines as the US ambassador to the Asian Development Bank, some of the reactions to the film have had an added, sometimes critical dimension. Some critics have called out the lack of economic and ethnic diversity of the Singaporeans portrayed on screen.  

Are old stereotypes, some wonder, being replaced by new ones? 

What is the change, they ask, that many are heralding in a film set primarily in Singapore and that focuses solely on the richest of the rich among that nation's ethnic Chinese? Will stereotypes – positive and negative – of people of Chinese heritage there and elsewhere, including in the Philippines, be reinforced?

For me, an Asian- and Chinese-American, that discussion should be welcomed as part of a drive for change but should not distract from the film. Crazy Rich Asians is a movie that matters. The film remains an important step forward – and a welcome change – and one that Kevin Kwan, author of the book "Crazy Rich Asians," on which the film is based, and I addressed on stage at a "Mic'd Up" session at the annual Milken Institute Global Conference in Los Angeles earlier this year. 

The theme and the tweets of our talk was a world in transition – including, as Kwan's book and the then-yet-to-be-released film adaptation make clear, the rise of wealth in Asia, and the rising visibility of Asians and now, Asian-Americans, and Chinese and Chinese-Americans.

That same changing world is very visible in Manila and also across the Philippines and elsewhere in Southeast Asia, with the rising visibility of Mainland Chinese tourists, state-owned enterprises, and businesses.

The potential for more Chinese investors and investment in the Philippines was clearly on the agenda at the recent state visit by China's President Xi Jinping and meetings with Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte.

A cover story for Time magazine in Asia this year featuring Chinese-American actress Constance Wu has proclaimed, "Crazy Rich Asians Is Going to Change Hollywood. It's About Time." And if the expectation that things are a changing was not clear enough in that headline, the article's subheading declared, "The much-anticipated movie signals a major step forward for representation – and for the industry."

Diversity of everyday Asians

Time will tell if that and other predictions of the film's impact prove true.

After all, some 25 years have passed since the last major Hollywood production to generate a similar buzz and hopes for change. That was The Joy Luck Club, brought to screen by Hong Kong-born American film director Wayne Wang in 1993 and based on author Amy Tan's best-selling novel of 4 Chinese-American women and their mothers, born in feudal China.  

Still, perhaps nothing makes Hollywood, and the blue-chip businesses and storied institutions of America, stand up and take notice like dollar signs, and lots of them. The Warner Brothers-distributed film directed by Jon M. Chu topped weekend box offices in the United States, and has already sold more than $235 million in tickets worldwide.

Certainly left out of the book and the film adaptation – which does the novel great justice – even amid the wealth of personalities that populate the world of the "crazy rich" is the diversity of everyday Asians, whether Asian-Americans or from this region.  

The movement toward greater representation though is much more than a single film, whether in the United States or the Philippines. It must also involve engagement and interaction, and move beyond token diversity to full inclusion. That's no simple task.

But as you ponder that and what we as individuals might do, go ahead, sit back, and enjoy the crazy rich show, again. – Rappler.com

Curtis S. Chin served as the US ambassador to the Asian Development Bank under presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, becoming only the fourth US ambassador of Chinese heritage. He now serves as managing director of advisory firm RiverPeak Group, LLC. Follow him on Twitter at @CurtisSChin.

A friend and I were discussing the leaked conversations allegedly from a University of the Philippines (UP) fraternity and she asked me: "Should we care? We could just ignore the conversation as that of small-minded bigots."

It's easy to see why some adults would rather dismiss the leaked conversations as a verbal pissing contest among immature boys over who could be more vulgar, more racist, more sexist, and homophobic. But words are never just words. When spoken in an echo chamber like a locker room or a fraternity chat room, words validate depraved thoughts like "punching her in the stomach after you cum inside her so she doesn't get pregnant," they embolden depraved plans like "let's get one of the cute brads to pretend to hit one of the LGBT and then beat them up." This is how words are transformed from mere ideas into action. Words have the power to terrorize.

A UP Manila student who spoke to me on condition of anonymity said that there is an atmosphere of paranoia and fear that has spilled over from one UP campus to another. The leaked chats targeted women, Muslims, and the LGBT people, and now members of these communities feel threatened. The student I spoke to said she couldn't help but look at fratmen classmates with newfound suspicion – especially after reading their comments about rape.

"It felt like a band-aid was ripped off and the deep dark underbelly of sexism was revealed. We are absolutely terrified. We don't know if any of those involved will be held accountable," she told me.

Another cause for alarm is how campus authorities – the adults – are handling the situation.

Anxiety among students

Let's backtrack a little bit.

About a few weeks ago, two incidents of fraternity violence erupted between rival fraternities Upsilon Sigma Phi and Alpha Phi Beta. This was around the same time that the UP Fighting Maroons made it to the UAAP semifinals. This is important because while UP Diliman chancellor Michael Tan condemned the brawl and warned that guilty parties could face criminal charges and expulsion, he also said that UP's UAAP victory "would not have been possible without the widespread support of all sectors, especially Nowheretogobutup, an alumni group where Upsilon Sigma Phi, Alpha Phi Beta, and all other fraternities of UP Diliman have been key players, working together to support our athletes."

Tan went on to say that the elders of the two fraternities "feverishly worked together" to achieve a truce. Tan was criticized for conflating two different events to downplay the campus skirmishes.

Fast forward to fraternity chats spewing with rage and violence – a digital version of what was happening on campus – leaked to the public, and you have the current social media firestorm that is fanning the flames of campus tension.

Twitter is ablaze with reports of intimidation against students speaking up on fraternity-related violence. A Twitter user who is a prominent "campus progressive" reportedly got banged up a bit. I reached out to him on Twitter to verify the incident and to confirm if it was related to the fraternity issue, but have not received a reply from him as of this writing.

On campus, outraged students have started protesting. Many school organizations have released statements condemning all forms of fraternity-related violence. Some members of the fraternity in question have resigned and severed their ties to the brotherhood.

The UP Office of Anti-Sexual Harassment has called on the individuals mentioned in the leaked chats to come forward and file a complaint. Under the UP Anti-Sexual Harassment Code, the definition of sexual harassment includes "acts committed in verbally, visually with or without the use of information communication technology." Unlike the national law on sexual harassment which is premised on a "superior and subordinate" power dynamic, the UP Code includes acts committed among peers.

Campus authorities need to be the adult in the room and step in to quell the tensions on campus – immediately. They cannot wait for students to come forward and file a complaint given the climate of fear and retaliation. You only need to look at the mauling incidents in India because of rumors spread on WhatsApp to see how quickly these things can get out of hand.

It also needs to acknowledge the sad and tragic truth about fraternities. The young men who are members of these fraternities because of their education and their connections (fraternity and otherwise), will likely hold positions of influence in the future. They are the sexist, misogynistic homophobes of today and the legislators, CEOs, and lawyers of tomorrow.

They are the junior version of Philippine feudal society where patronage secures political and business favors, and even a blind eye to certain transgressions. In their current state, they enable gang violence, not brotherhood. Fraternity-based violence like hazing and campus brawls known as "rumbles" are our version of US school shootings.

Those leaked conversations are a mirror of the hatred and bigotry that fuel violence.

What happens next will be a litmus test for UP.

The university has from its inception prided itself in its values of fighting for righteous causes and the championing of the oppressed, being subversive in the face of authoritarianism, and at every level, keeping power in check.

Will UP live up to the standards it has set for itself – can it be the adult in the room – when the power that needs to be checked is one of its own? – Rappler.com

Ana P. Santos writes about sex and gender issues. Her Rappler column, Dash of SAS, is a spin-off of her blog, Sex and Sensibilities (SAS).

Wala tayong tiwala sa “kaibigang” niyuyukuan ni Tatay.  

Ang balita mula sa ibang barangay, naghahanap siya ng mga sambahayang hikahos, at aalukin ng limpak-limpak na pautang, para umano’y umunlad ang buhay, pero kalaunan pala’y mahirap mabayaran.  

Kaya kokolektahin niya ang natitira mong kasangkapan, aangkinin ang pag-aari mong yaman, o iilitin ang lupang minana mo pa sa kanunu-nunuan. 

Hindi malayong gawin niya rin iyon sa pamilya natin. Ang dami kasing gustong ipagawa ni Tatay: kalsada, tulay, tren, paliparan, dam. Basta, maraming-maraming ipapatayo, at lahat daw tayo’y magiging abala – at sagana. Kinagat ni Tatay ang alok, kahit mas malaki ang tubo kaysa ibang nagpapahiram. 

Alam naman nating matagal nang kinakanya ng higanteng iyon ang halos buong nayon. Pati ang barangay, na sigurado tayong atin na atin, ay gusto niyang angkinin. Nauna raw ang angkan niya rito sa kalakhan, kaya sila lang ang may karapatan. 

’Yung ibang barangay, pumapalag sila kapag nilalapastangan; lumalaban kahit duwendeng maituturing ang katayuan; at kahit nakikipagkalakal at nangungutang doon sa maton na katabing barangay, nagpoprotesta sa ngalan ng soberenya. 

Tayo? Nanalo tayo nang kuwestiyunin sa tribunal ang panunuwapang ng higante sa hangganan ng kanyang barangay. Pinanigan tayo ng mga huwes nang ideklarang walang basehan ang teritoryong ginuguhitan ng pasaway. Pero sabi ni Tatay, ’wag tayong magbunyi, ’wag tayong maingay, ’wag nating ipangalandakan ang naging tagumpay – nakakahiya sa kaibigan niya. Isantabi natin ang piraso ng papel, wala namang magpapatupad niyan. 

Tayo? Ilang beses nang nagsumbong ang mga kapatid nating bantay sa ating nasasakupan– nagtanim na ng muhon ang BFF ni Tatay, sinemento ang mga isla, dinadaungan ng mga barko nila’t nilalapagan na ng mga eroplanong panggiyera. Itinataboy niya sa sarili nating dagat ang mga kapatid nating mangingisda – sinasabugan ng tubig, kinukuha ang matatabang huli, pinapaharurutan ng mga lantsa.  

May isa pang malaking kasalanan ang paboritong kapitbahay ni Tatay. Ang drogang heyt na heyt ni Tatay – naghandusay na nga, dahil sa utos niya, ang bangkay ng ating mga kaanak na nahulihan niya o napaghinalaan – bultuhan kung ipuslit galing sa teritoryo ng kanyang kaibigan. 

Pero parang walang naririnig si Tatay. Giit niya, “Mahal ko siya,” at kailangan daw natin ng pera ng higanteng bisita. 

Kaya ipinalatag niya ang pulang alpombra nang dumating ang bisitang ang laki’y mala-panda.  

Kinikilig ba si Tatay? Sabi kasi ng bisita, kasinggiting daw si Tatay ng bayani ng ating angkan na sa totoo’y mula rin sa lahi ng kanyang kaibigan. Pero alam nating sumusukot sa libingan ang bangkay ni Manong Pepe – kung buhay siya ngayon, hindi-hinding niya tayo ipaiilalim sa sinumang dayuhan. 

“Yuko, anak, yuko,” sabi ni Tatay sa atin. “Bisita ’yan eh.” Kaya, hayun, nang nagmamartsa sila ng bisita papasok sa ating bahay, hinayaan niyang bandilang pula lang nito ang wumawagayway. 

“Sayaw, anak, sayaw,” sabi rin ni Tatay. “Pasasalamat natin sa dalawampu’t siyam na tulong na aming pinagkasunduan.” Hawak natin ngayon ang magaan na papel na ang nakalista pala ay mga pangako pa lang.  

“Hubad, irog, hubad,” sabi ni Tatay kay Nanay. “Aanhin natin ang ari-arian kung walang katuwang na maglilinang?” Nakangisi ang bisita, ini-imagine kung ano-anong masisisid, matutuklasan, mapapagyaman sa bahaging kailanman ay di niya kinilalang tayo ang may karapatan. 

“‘Wag po si Nanay!” Pero lango si Tatay – nasanay sa bulag nating pagsunod, sa paglunok natin ng mga “P——- i—!” niya, sa puro dakdak lang nating protesta. 

Saglit na panahon pa, mamamahinga na rin si Tatay. At tayong malakas pa ang magpapasan ng bunga ng pagbubugaw niya sa sambahayan. 

Nasaan sa atin ang walo sa sampung maninindigan? Hindi maipagtatanggol si Inang Bayan ng puro ingay lamang. – Rappler.com 

Last November 20, news circulated that Eugene de Vera, representative of the party-list group Arts, Business, and Science Professionals (ABS), was expelled from the House of Representatives.

My first instinct was to ask, how did it happen? Apart from death or voluntary causes like resignation, there are exclusive and very limited grounds by which a member of the House of Representatives may be removed.  

One constitutional mechanism to remove a sitting member of the House of Representatives is through the House of Representatives Electoral Tribunal. Under Article VI, Section 17, of the 1987 Constitution, the HRET is the “sole judge of all contests relating to the election, returns, and qualifications of their respective Members.”

Necessarily, this power includes the authority to remove members who are found to not have legally won the elections or who suffer from an ineligibility or disqualification. 

In election law, the we can invoke this power of the HRET through either of the following:

• A petition for quo warranto, on the ground of ineligibility or disqualification
• An election protest, if the issue is the legality of the election and proclamation

The other constitutional mechanism is in Article VI Section 16, which provides: “Each House may determine the rules of its proceedings, punish its Members for disorderly behavior, and, with the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members, suspend or expel a Member. A penalty of suspension, when imposed, shall not exceed sixty days.” 

Pursuant to this provision, the Rules of the House of Representatives was promulgated. Its Section 139 provides a long list of its Code of Conduct. Penalties for violations are provided in Section 140: either suspension or expulsion, with the concurrence of the two-thirds of all its members. 

Outside of these two constitutional mechanisms, there are no other ways to remove a House member. This exclusivity and the difficulty of these mechanisms are born out of the necessity of shielding the members from unnecessary pressures, retaliations, and threats of removal by reason of their work. 

The expulsion of De Vera by the plenary of the House of Representatives was, to say it mildly, a constitutional anomaly. 

Majority Leader Rolando Andaya gave the following reasons: 

• The party-list group ABS expelled De Vera as member after the latter questioned the minority leadership of Quezon 3rd District Representative Danilo Suarez before the Supreme Court. 
• De Vera filed his candidacy as congressman for Marikina’s second district for the 2019 elections, thus, he already “abandoned” ABS.

If De Vera was no longer a member of the party-list group ABS, does this mean that he could also be forcibly removed as member of the House of Representatives?

In the earlier article I wrote about the attempt to remove Harry Roque from the House following his expulsion from the group Kabayan, I cited the case of Abayon vs. HRET (GR Number 189466, February 11, 2010). In that case, where the Supreme Court held that it is the party-list representative who is elected into office, not the party-list group or organization he represents. (READ: No, Kabayan, you can't just kick out Harry Roque)

This means that, for all legal intents and purposes, it was Harry Roque, not Kabayan, who was the member of the House of Representatives. Kabayan had no direct or any vested interest over the seat, except inchoately, as when Roque dies, withdraws in writing his nomination (resigns), or becomes incapacitated. Kabayan would then have the right to submit new nominees to Comelec. 

The same rule applies to De Vera.  

The Abayon ruling, however, while still controlling, is no longer absolute. It must be taken together with the case of Lico vs Comelec (GR Number 205505, September 29, 2015), where the Supreme Court ruled that bona fide membership in the party-list group is a “continuing qualification.”

This means a party-list representative must remain a bona fide member of his organization throughout his entire term. Those who cease to be bona fide members can be a subject of a quo warranto proceeding before the HRET. 

In this case, the logical move – in fact, the only constitutional move – by anyone who questions De Vera would have been to file a quo warranto case before the HRET. However, I do see the reason De Vera’s enemies did not avail themselves of this option:

• First, by June 2019, by the entry of a new set of members, all cases would be deemed moot and academic. Considering that it is already late November and all reelectionists are already busy preparing for the upcoming polls, the possibility of finishing the case by June 2019 is almost an impossibility.
• Second, the HRET composition is not easy to control, politically speaking. Of the 9 members, 3 are Supreme Court justices and the remaining 6 are House members but chosen on the basis of proportional representation from the political parties and party-list groups.

Obviously, the House leadership chose the expulsion route, which is not only legally questionable but leaves a very bad taste in the mouth.

Process wise, under the Constitution, expulsion requires “the concurrence of two-thirds of all its Members” – one of the highest voting thresholds imposed by the 1987 Constitution. In the case of De Vera, it was swiftly done viva voce or by oral voting. How can a two-third vote be determined or ascertained – both by those for or against the expulsion – if the voting was done viva voce and without nominal voting? By who shouted louder? From this point alone, the method was already unconstitutional. 

Following the Rules of the House of Representatives, it is apparent that the ground cited by Andaya is not one of the grounds for expulsion as listed in Section 139. It must be noted the rule on expulsion of members (Section 140) is tied with the Code of Conduct in Section 139. Both sections are under Rule XIX. Now, can the House expel a member for any other ground outside of Section 139, without first amending the rules?

Based on the Lico case, it is clear that the ground raised against De Vera constituted a ground for a quo warranto, which is exclusively cognizable by the HRET. The act of the plenary was therefore in breach of the exclusive and original jurisdiction of the HRET, thus, unconstitutional.

It must be recalled that the HRET, while attached to the House of Representatives, is a constitutional office created distinct and independent from the House. Its members are not purely from the House but shared with the Supreme Court. In other words, the HRET is not the House. 

The removal of De Vera by this brazen and unconstitutional means is simply dumbfounding. The Constitution is clear and made even clearer by abundant jurisprudence, yet Congress still went the other way and chose to bend the law and resort to brute force to remove a member.

I do not know Mr De Vera personally or of his political persuasion, but I believe that I know the law enough to say that this is wrong. Indeed, we live in strange times, where everything is possible and anything can happen! – Rappler.com 

Emil Marañon III is an election lawyer specializing in automated election litigation and consulting. He is one of the election lawyers consulted by the camp of Vice President Leni Robredo, whose victory is being contested by former senator Ferdinand Marcos Jr. Marañon served in Comelec as chief of staff of retired Comelec Chairman Sixto Brillantes Jr. He is a partner at Trojillo Ansaldo and Marañon (TAM) Law Offices.  

Patapos na ang Nobyembre. Ang daming nangyari. Highlight na ng buwan na ito siguro para sa bansa natin ang pagdating ng BFF ng Pangulo kaya nawalan kami ng pasok sa matandang unibersidad sa Maynila noong Nobyembre 20. Natapos na rin ang ASEAN Summit sa Singapore na dinaluhan (o tinulugan, depende sa bias mo) ng Pangulo. 

Parang kailan lang noong katapusan ng Oktubre nang mag-viral ang marubdob na birthday greeting ni Pareng Buboy sa kaniyang kaibigang si Kagawad Chris Morales ng Santa Ana, heto't matatapos na pala ang Nobyembre. Oo, isang buwan na ang lumipas nang pumutok ang isyu ng kontrobersiyal na birthday greeting. Hindi pa ito matagal, pero sino pa ba ang nakakaalala? 

Speaking of nakakaalala, wala na yatang nakaaalala na ang buwan na ito ay kinikilala sa ating bansa bilang Reading Month – kung paanong wala na ring nakakaalala kung paano magbasa nang marubdob, lalo na sa kagubatan ng social media. Magbasa ng tunay na book, ha, hindi Facebook? 

As for the Reading Month "celebration," wala, nasa maliliit na sulok na lamang marahil ng isang inaagiw na silid sa paaralan ang pagkilala sa Nobyembre bilang buwan ng pagbasa. May pa-quiz bee siguro tungkol sa mga klasikong akda ng kung sinong awtor na hindi binasa pero naging trivia. O kaya may essay writing o declamation contest tungkol sa mabuting naidudulot ng pagbabasa. Puwede ring nagkaroon ng Mister and Miss Reading Month sa bawat school, alam 'nyo na, hindi malayo sa Ginoo at Binibini ng Buwan ng Wika. Malay 'nyo ba?

Nakahihinayang kasi ang pagkilala bilang buwan ng pagbabasa sa buwan ng Nobyembre dahil, bilang propesor ng panitikan – thereby nanghihikayat ng pagbabasa sa matandang unibersidad sa España, Maynila, at sa mga ka-Facebook ko – naniniwala akong isa ang pagbabasa sa pinakamabisang makapagpapabuti at makapagpapatalino sa tao. 

Maraming matatalisod na artikulo sa internet, na may patunay ng akademya at agham, na nagpapahayag na higit na mabuti sa well being ang pagbabasa kung ihahambing halimbawa sa panonood ng telebisyon o pelikula sa sinehan. 

Hindi ko masisi kung nahihirapang magbasa ang marami lalo't malaganap ang new media. Literal na nasa palad na lang natin ang maraming impormasyon taglay ng hawak nating smartphones o tablet na nakasawsaw sa internet. Sa tradisyonal na libro o diyaryo nga naman, cumbersome, mabigat,  mahirap dalhin. Patunay nito ang pagbabasa ninyo ng artikulo kong ito na maaaring natalisod lamang ninyo sa newsfeed. Maaaring na-share ng kung sinong nalito.

Iyon nga lang, sa kabila ng ginhawa, minsan, lalo sa mga napagkaitan ng tech-savviness, nagiging mas matalino pa sa gumagamit ang smartphone. Lalo kung hindi na-disable ang predictive text output, halimbawa, mas nauuna pang tapusin ng smartphone ang salitang hindi mo naman gustong sabihin. Iba pa ang usapin kapag bumagal ang telepono mo o nabago ang interface sanhi ng "upgrade" at "update" na ipinipilit sa iyo ng kompanya ng iyong paboritong consumer electronics. 

Madali na nga namang makapaglalaro ng video games, makapanonood ng video, makakapakinig ng musika, makikibalita basta may subskripsiyon ka ng internet kahit mabagal. Hindi na tuloy masyadong napahahalagahan ang pagbabasa, halimbawa, ng istorya o kuwento bagamat nakatutuwang isipin na may mga ganitong pananaliksik hinggil sa kakayahang magbasa ng marami sa atin.

Kaugnay at sa kabila nito, na lubos na nakapagpasaya sa akin bilang kontradiksiyon sa lugod na dulot ng new media, napuno ang schedule ko ng mga pangyayaring may kinalaman sa tradisyonal na pagbabasa nito lamang huling ilang araw.

Una, bilang board member ng Philippine Center of International PEN ang inyong lingkod, idinaos namin nitong Nobyembre 22 at 23 ang 61st Philippine PEN National Congress sa Cultural Center of the Philippines Complex. Makahulugan ang tema ng okasyon: "Writing the Nation: The Filipino Writer and Nation-Building."

Sa loob ng dalawang araw, sa harap ng mahigit 200 guro, mag-aaral, at tagatangkilik ng panitikang Filipino buhat sa iba't ibang panig ng kapuluan, tinalakay ng mga nangungunang manunulat at alagad ng sining sa bansa ang tungkulin ng pagsulat sa pagbubuo at pagpapatibay ng kabansaan. 

Gaya ng dapat asahan, sing-init at sintapang ng supply na kape sa PEN Congress ang talakayan, pero may ilang bahagi rin namang masaya at nakatatawa. Pero ang hindi mawawala ay ang rubdob at sigasig para pasiglahin ang panitikan at pagbabasa para sa sambayanang Filipino. At, oo, may isang makata at peryodista, si Ramil Digal Gulle, ang nagsabi na sumulat na kami sa social media dahil naroon ang mambabasa. Kaya nag-status agad ako sa Facebook pagkatapos.  

Ikalawa, naimbitahan din ang inyong lingkod na maging hurado kasama ang dalawa pang propesor buhat sa UP Diliman at Ateneo de Manila University sa 2018 Madrigal-Gonzalez Best First Book Award na itinataguyod naman ng UP Institute of Creative Writing at ng pamilya Madrigal-Gonzales.

Napakagagaling ng mga lahok na aklat na nalathala noong 2016 at 2017. Mula sa 11 aklat na lahok, namili kami ng shortlist na nakasama namin sa ginanap na awarding ceremony noong Biyernes nang hapon, November 23, sa UP Diliman. 

Ang mga aklat at ang may-akda na itinanghal na shortlist ay Sa Mga Pansamantala: Mga Tula (UST Publishing House, 2017) ni Vijae Orquia Alquisola, Dead Balagtas Tomo I: Mga Sayaw ng Dagat at Lupa (Adarna House, 2017) ni Emiliana Kampilan, MELÄG (Adarna House, 2016) by R. Redila, at ang Bienvenida de Soltera: Tatlong Dulang Ganap ang Haba (UST Publishing House, 2017) na akda naman ni Liza C. Magtoto. 

Sa huli, itinanghal na pinakamagaling na unang aklat ang Dead Balagtas Tomo I: Mga Sayaw ng Dagat at Lupa ni Emiliana Kampilan. 

Nagkamit ang misteryosong awtor ng halagang P50,000 para sa kaniyang kakaiba at napakagaling na graphic stories na hindi lamang basta tungkol sa pag-ibig, kung hindi pag-ibig na nag-uugat sa pananampalataya, kultura, antroplohiya, pulitika. Si Kampilan din ang nagdibuho ng kaniyang aklat. Kagilagilalas ang biswal na rendisyon ng mga istorya sa aklat.

Ginanap nitong Nobyembre 23 ang awarding ng 2018 Madrigal-Gonzalez Best First Book Award sa UP Hotel kasabay ng tradisyonal na UP Writers' Night, na tinatawag ko ring Feeling Writers' Night o Reunion ng Manginginom na Writers' Night. Magandang pagtatagpo ng bago at beteranong manunulat ang beer-fuelled event na ito sa UP Diliman. 

Nito namang nagdaang Sabado, Nobyembre 24, pinarangalan ng Manila Critics Circle at National Book Development Board ang mga pinakamagagaling na aklat na nalathala noong 2017. Rightfully, tinawag ang parangal na National Book Awards. 

Ilan sa mga nanalo ang mga kaibigan at kasamahan ko sa trabaho, isa na rito ang coordinator ng AB Creative Writing program ng UST na si Prof Chuckberry J Pascual para sa kaniyang aklat na Ang Nawawala, na inilathala ng Visprint Incorporated, para sa kategoryang maikling kuwento. Nagwagi rin ang boss ko sa UST Center for Creative Writing and Literary Studies na si Prof Cristina Pantoja Hidalgo para sa kaniyang aklat na The Thing with Feathers, na inilathala naman ng UST Publishing House, para naman sa kategoryang essay sa Ingles.

Nasungkit naman ng popular na awtor at dati kong kasamahan sa UST (at ngayon ay nasa isang unibersidad na sa Taft Avenue, hmp) at matalik na kaibigan na si Eros Atalia ang gawad sa pinakamagaling na nobela sa Filipino, para sa aklat na Ang Ikatlong Antikristo, na inilathala ng Visprint. 

Samantala, dalawang award ang napanalunan muli ng Dead Balagtas Tomo I: Mga Sayaw ng Dagat at Lupa ni Emiliana Kampilan: ang Best Graphic Literature at Best Book Design. Narito ang kumpletong listahan ng mga nagsipagwagi.

Napakagandang paraan sana ng pagtatapos ng buwan ng pagbasa ang mga ganitong okasyon. Sana lang, tangkilikin at basahin din ng maraming kababayan natin ang mga inilalathalang aklat ng magagaling nating awtor. 

O kaya, mabuti pa, gastusan ng gobyerno ang pagbili ng mga nanalong librong ito at ipamigay sa aklatan ng mga pampublikong paaralan. Kumita na ang naglathalang publikasyon, nagkaroon ng royalty ang mga awtor, may mabubuting aklat pa ang mga paaralan, at magkakaroon ng tiyak na mambabasa ang mga manunulat – lahat panalo! Pero, siyempre, hindi ito mangyayari kung hindi mahilig magbasa ng aklat maging ang mga namamahala sa ating bansa. – 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.

The President has appointed the Supreme Court’s 163rd Associate Justice, Lucas P. Bersamin, to be the country’s 25th Chief Justice.

Before his appointment, he was number 3 (appointed in April 2009) on the lineal list of incumbent justices based on the date of their appointment to the Supreme Court, with Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio, being the most senior (148th Associate Justice, appointed in October 2001), and Associate Justice Diosdado M. Peralta as the second most senior (162nd Associate Justice, appointed in January 2009).

With his appointment, Chief Justice Bersamin automatically becomes number one on the lineal list and considered the most senior among the Members of the Court En Banc.

His appointment, coming after the President himself stated that he would follow the seniority rule in selecting a Chief Justice, made many all stoked about the role of seniority in the President’s choice of Chief Justice.

This week, we take a Deep Dive into the so-called seniority rule in the appointment of a Chief Justice. What exactly is the rule, where is it found, and what are the parameters of the seniority rule? 

Understanding seniority

There is no definition of “seniority” in the Supreme Court’s Internal Rules. It is referred to as a matter of fact.

The United States Supreme Court, which is the model for the Philippine Supreme Court in many of its traditions, also does not define “seniority,” simply stating that “…the nine Justices are seated by seniority on the Bench. The Chief Justice occupies the center chair; the senior Associate Justice sits to his right, the second senior to his left, and so on, alternating right and left by seniority.”  

Rule 5 of the Supreme Court’s Internal Rules, on Precedence and Protocol, however, provides for the clearest idea of how the Court views “seniority.” Under section 1, “The Chief Justice enjoys precedence over all the other Members of the Court in all official functions. The Associate Justices shall have precedence according to the order of their appointments as officially transmitted to the Supreme Court.”

Under this section, “seniority” is understood as precedence in rank according to the date their appointment is transmitted. This is also how the Court itself defined “seniority” for purposes of the Court of Appeals, which has the same exact provision on Precedence and Protocol that the Supreme Court has.  

In Re: Seniority Among the Recent Appointments to the Position of Associate Justices of the Court of Appeals, A.M. No. 10-4-22-SC (A.M. No. 10-4-22-SC, September 28, 2010), the Court En Banc said that:

“For purposes of appointments to the judiciary, … the date the commission has been signed by the President (which is the date appearing on the face of such document) is the date of the appointment. Such date will determine the seniority of the members of the Court of Appeals in connection with Section 3, Chapter I of BP 129, as amended by RA 8246. In other words, the earlier the date of the commission of an appointee, the more senior he/she is over the other subsequent appointees. It is only when the appointments of two or more appointees bear the same date that the order of issuance of the appointments by the President becomes material.” 

Another understanding of seniority has been advanced – that the entire judicial record of the nominee be considered.

In the case of Chief Justice Bersamin, he was appointed judge earlier than all the other 5 nominees, although Associate Justice Estela M. Perlas Bernabe started her career in the judiciary as a technical assistant in 1976.

Considering, however, the Court’s own understanding of “seniority” as one’s rank determined by the date of appointment, it is clear that the most senior, as of the time of selection, was Senior Associate Justice Antonio T. Carpio. 

Historical record on seniority

Are Presidents bound by seniority in choosing a Chief Justice?

The Philippines has only had 25 chief justices in its history:

1. Cayetano S. Arellano
2. Victorino M. Mapa
3. Manuel G. Araullo
4. Ramon Q. Avanceña
5. Jose B. Abad Santos
6. Jose Y. Yulo
7. Manuel V. Moran
8. Ricardo M. Paras
9. Cesar C. Bengzon
10. Roberto B. Concepcion
11. Querube C. Makalintal
12. Fred Ruiz Castro
13. Enrique M. Fernando
14. Felix V. Makasiar
15. Ramon C. Aquino
16. Claudio S. Teehankee Sr.
17. Pedro L. Yap Sr.
18. Marcelo B. Fernan
19. Andres R. Narvasa
20. Hilario G. Davide Jr.
21. Artemio V. Panganiban
22. Reynato S. Puno
23. Renato C . Corona
24. Teresita J. Leonardo De Castro
25. Lucas P. Bersamin

Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno, appointed by President Benigno S. Aquino III in August of 2012 to be the 24th Chief Justice, is not on the list as a consequence of the Supreme Court’s decision in Republic v. Sereno, which declared her appointment as Chief Justice void ab initio. As a result, Teresita J. Leonardo De Castro, appointed Chief Justice in September 2018, became the country’s 24th Chief Justice.

The historical record will show that on at least 4 occasions, the President did not feel bound by seniority as the most senior Associate Justice was not elevated to be Chief Justice.

1. Enrique M. Fernando to Claudio M. Teehankee Sr.

When Enrique M. Fernando, the 13th Chief Justice, retired on July 24, 1985, Claudio M. Teehankee Sr. was the most senior Associate Justice but was not named to be Chief Justice. Instead, Ferdinand Marcos named Felix V. Makasiar as the 14th Chief Justice, serving from July 25, 1985 until his retirement on November 19, 1985. Again, Teehankee Sr. was, at that time, the most senior Associate Justice but was again not named to be Chief Justice. Marcos named Ramon C. Aquino to be the 15th Chief Justice, serving from November 20, 1985 until his retirement on March 6, 1986. Teehankee would eventually be appointed the 16th Chief Justice under the Cory Aquino government, serving from April 2, 1986 until his retirement on April 18, 1988.

2. Hilario G. Davide Jr. to Reynato S. Puno

When Hilario G. Davide Jr., the 20th Chief Justice, retired on December 20, 2005, Reynato S. Puno was the most senior Associate Justice but was not named to be Chief Justice. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo named Artemio V. Panganiban to be the 21st Chief Justice, serving from December 21, 2005 to December 6, 2006. Puno would later become the 22nd Chief Justice, serving from December 7, 2007 to May 16, 2010, succeeding Panganiban.

3. Reynato S. Puno to Renato C. Corona to Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno

When Puno himself retired on May 16, 2010, Antonio T. Carpio was the most senior Associate Justice but was not named to be Chief Justice. Instead, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo named Renato C. Corona to be the 23rd Chief Justice, serving from May 17, 2010 until May 29, 2012, when he was removed as a result of the judgment of conviction from the Senate, acting as an impeachment court. At that time, Carpio remained to be the most senior Associate Justice and served briefly as Acting Chief Justice until the appointment on August 2012 of Maria Lourdes P. A. Sereno as Chief Justice.

4. Teresita J. Leonardo De Castro to Lucas P. Bersamin

When Sereno was removed by the Supreme Court’s judgment in Republic v. Sereno, Carpio still remained to be the most senior Associate Justice. Because he did not agree to be nominated and considered for Chief Justice, Teresita J. Leonardo De Castro was the most senior Associate Justice on the list of nominees for Chief Justice. She eventually became the 24th Chief Justice, until her retirement on October 10, 2018. 

Before the appointment of Chief Justice Bersamin as the 25th Chief Justice, Carpio was the most Senior Associate Justice.  

Seniority not binding on the President

The 1987 Constitution does not provide for separate criteria in choosing a Chief Justice. The requirements for Associate Justice are the same as the requirements for a Chief Justice. Seniority is not a factor that is required in the selection of a Chief Justice. 

While seniority is a tradition that is important for the Court, it is not a tradition that is necessarily binding on the President. The historical record will show that former presidents Marcos, Arroyo, and Aquino did not follow seniority in appointing chief justices. 

What would be the advantages of using seniority, as understood by the Court, in the President’s selection of a Chief Justice?

The most obvious would be the absence of a learning curve because the most Senior Associate Justice, presumably the longest serving, would already be very familiar with the Court, its work, and its traditions. The most senior Associate Justice would also be respected in an institution that prizes collegiality and, thus, may be expected to facilitate collegiality. 

Binding oneself to seniority, however, would also come with a downside. A President who is looking to institute long term reforms that are unhampered by presidential transitions would be bound to simply elevate the next most senior without regard to his or her own vision of what the judiciary ought to be and ought to do.  

But then, the most senior might also be the best choice.

In the end, it really depends on the President’s vision of what the judiciary is. Appointing the judiciary’s head, whether the most senior or not, is the only way by which the President may legally exert influence over the judiciary; after which, that leader may be free to be utterly ungrateful for the appointment – or not. – Rappler.com

Theodore Te, Ted to many, is a human rights lawyer and advocate, law educator, font geek and comic book fan, occasional movie and music reviewer, a life-long Boston Celtics fan and a loud opponent of the death penalty, violations of human rights, government abuse, and social injustice. Deep Dive is his attempt at probing into issues of law and rights, politics and governance (and occasionally entertainment and sports) beyond the headlines, the sound bites, the spin, and the buzz. 

Next year’s elections will prove pivotal for our country.  

With issues like federalism and charter change looming in the horizon, electing the right leaders (especially senators) has never been more crucial for the future of our country and our democracy.

At the same time, a sizeable number of next year’s voters will comprise the youth. This year, based on Commission on Elections data, nearly a fifth of all registered voters (18.5%) are aged 15 to 24 – those more or less belonging to the so-called “Gen Z.” 

But is Gen Z up to the challenge of #PHVote2019? Are they sufficiently engaged in social and political discussions? How much do they care about the most pressing issues of the day? 

Studies profiling the Filipino Gen Z are few and far in between, and as far as I know no study has yet been made about their civic engagement and political views.

But in this article I would like to share what perhaps comes closest: the Far Eastern University (FEU) Public Policy Center’s College Experience Survey, the new results of which were presented to the public last week. (Disclosure: I am currently research coordinator of Center.)

College Experience Survey

What is the College Experience Survey or CES? 

It’s a longitudinal survey that aims to understand how the college experience molds several aspects of students’ lives: from their motivations, attitudes, activities, values, abilities, and opinions.

By “longitudinal” we mean that students were surveyed in their freshman year, and then asked roughly the same questions as they went through their sophomore, junior, and senior years. 

Right now the CES has followed two cohorts of students: those who were freshmen in 2014 and in 2015. 

The survey was conducted across 9 schools for the 2014 cohort (a total of 4,323 sampled students) and 25 schools nationwide for the 2015 cohort (6,676 sampled students).

By using “randomized block sampling” the survey is – to the best of our efforts – representative of more than 27,000 college freshmen in 2014, and more than 53,000 college freshmen in 2015. (The detailed methodology and results will soon be uploaded on the FPPC’s website.)

Note, however, that the results speak for the students in the participating schools only, and not for Gen Z at large. 

The CES is also not specially designed as a survey on the youth’s civic engagement (the FPPC is planning to conduct one such study in the future).

Plugged-in, but apathetic?

What can we learn from the CES? (In the interest of brevity let’s confine ourselves to the results for juniors of the 2014 cohort.) 

First, the sampled Gen Z students not only obtained a lot of their knowledge and information from online sources, but also deemed them as the “best” sources.

As many as 44% said they used technology and online sources of knowledge very often (Figure 1) and 88% agreed somehow that it’s “best” to get news from social media (Figure 3).

These numbers are unsurprising given that Gen Z were born into a time when digital media are fairly advanced and Internet use widespread.

At the same time, only 8% said that they very often critically evaluated the information they received, and only 12% said they very often asked questions or clarified ideas in class. 

This, combined with their singular reliance on information from the Internet and social media, could make these Gen Z students particularly susceptible to all manner of disinformation – from clickbait articles to misleading memes.

{source}

<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-gjRDq" src="//datawrapper.dwcdn.net/gjRDq/4/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="325"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">if("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper={};window.datawrapper["gjRDq"]={},window.datawrapper["gjRDq"].embedDeltas={"100":446,"200":371,"300":354,"400":325,"500":325,"700":325,"800":325,"900":325,"1000":325},window.datawrapper["gjRDq"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-gjRDq"),window.datawrapper["gjRDq"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["gjRDq"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["gjRDq"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])if("gjRDq"==b)window.datawrapper["gjRDq"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"});</script>

{/source} 

Figure 1

Another thing about Gen Z is that they’re not as politically engaged as we might think (Figure 2).

As many as 86% of the surveyed students said they never demonstrated for a cause, while 71% never worked on a local campaign, whether national or local. Moreover, 24% or almost a fourth said they never publicly communicated their opinions about a cause, and 17% said they never discussed politics.

{source}

<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-g9MPI" src="//datawrapper.dwcdn.net/g9MPI/3/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="292"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">if("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper={};window.datawrapper["g9MPI"]={},window.datawrapper["g9MPI"].embedDeltas={"100":442,"200":338,"300":321,"400":292,"500":292,"700":292,"800":292,"900":292,"1000":292},window.datawrapper["g9MPI"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-g9MPI"),window.datawrapper["g9MPI"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["g9MPI"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["g9MPI"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])if("g9MPI"==b)window.datawrapper["g9MPI"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"});</script>

{/source} 

Figure 2

Meanwhile, only 39% thought themselves very good or excellent in keeping abreast with current events and national issues, and only 25% said it was very important to keep updated with political affairs.

Opinions 

This seeming apathy among the surveyed Gen Z students might explain their opinions on a host of social and political issues, which the CES also asked (Figure 3).

Around 62% strongly agreed that “hard work is the most important element of success in Filipino society,” while 49% strongly agreed that “corrupt government officials are entitled to a full and fair trial.”  

Meanwhile, strongest disagreement was found in controversial propositions like “there’s nothing wrong with premarital sex” (24%), “divorced should be legalized” (23%), and “same sex marriage should be allowed” (21%). 

{source}

<iframe id="datawrapper-chart-f88iK" src="//datawrapper.dwcdn.net/f88iK/1/" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowtransparency="true" style="width: 0; min-width: 100% !important;" height="551"></iframe><script type="text/javascript">if("undefined"==typeof window.datawrapper)window.datawrapper={};window.datawrapper["f88iK"]={},window.datawrapper["f88iK"].embedDeltas={"100":614,"200":568,"300":551,"400":551,"500":551,"700":551,"800":551,"900":551,"1000":551},window.datawrapper["f88iK"].iframe=document.getElementById("datawrapper-chart-f88iK"),window.datawrapper["f88iK"].iframe.style.height=window.datawrapper["f88iK"].embedDeltas[Math.min(1e3,Math.max(100*Math.floor(window.datawrapper["f88iK"].iframe.offsetWidth/100),100))]+"px",window.addEventListener("message",function(a){if("undefined"!=typeof a.data["datawrapper-height"])for(var b in a.data["datawrapper-height"])if("f88iK"==b)window.datawrapper["f88iK"].iframe.style.height=a.data["datawrapper-height"][b]+"px"});</script>

{/source} 

Figure 3

Disquietingly, as many as 56% agreed that the “death penalty should be reinstated” and 41% agreed with the claim that “summary execution is a legitimate method of crime control.” 

At the same time, 33% said they were still uncertain whether “EJKs (extrajudicial killings) are being used as a method of crime control”— despite the overwhelming evidence.

Finally, 34% somehow agreed that the “government can give up our claim in the West Philippine Sea in exchange for ventures with China.”  

The considerable agreement on certain issues – like reinstating the death penalty or giving up our claims in the West Philippine Sea – is unsettling to say the least. Even more so are opinions about factual matters that are supposed to be beyond reasonable doubt (like the existence of EJKs).

Yet, at the same time, the significant uncertainty on certain issues – like summary execution as a legitimate crime control method (39%) and the existence of EJKs (33%) – gives us hope that a considerable portion of Gen Z could still be swayed to make more informed opinions, especially since many of these issues will likely figure in the upcoming elections. 

What can we do?

The picture that emerges, therefore, is that Gen Z—at least those in our survey—have quick access to information online and are immersed in social media, yet not very diligent critical thinkers and not so politically engaged. 

This is not to say, of course, that Gen Z is totally apathetic. To reiterate, our study is not representative of Gen Z at large, and to tell more about them perhaps a dedicated survey on civic participation is needed.

In addition, we must update and expand our traditional notions of civic engagement and political activism. 

Instead of being just confined to holding up placards or attending demonstrations, we must now count in online furor against fraternity-related violence on Twitter, or the widespread use of Winnie the Pooh profile pictures on Facebook.

Having said that, how can parents and schools instill a greater sense of civic consciousness and political awareness among Gen Z? How can we arm them with skills and attitudes that will make them more critical thinkers in this age of disinformation and social media?

The outcomes of the 2019 elections could very well hinge on the answers to these questions. Luckily for us, it’s not yet too late. – Rappler.com 

In her Inquirer article, Solita “Mareng Winnie” Monsod makes the same mistake as F. Sionil Jose of conflating “Chinese people” with “Chinese government,” and, worse, conflating “Chinese people” with “Chinese in the Philippines,” which is further subdivided into 3 categories: Filipinos of Chinese ancestry who self-identify as Chinese Filipinos, Chinese nationals who hold Republic of China passports (note that Taiwan should not be equated with Mainland China; majority of Taiwanese certainly do not think they are the same as the Chinese in the mainland), and Chinese nationals who hold People's Republic of China passports. 

Conflating such diverse groups of people is not only intellectually lazy, but leads to all sorts of unfounded generalizations. Take, for example, her statement that “there seems to be no distinction between the Chinese people and the Chinese government.” She conveniently forgets that China is an authoritarian state with far greater capability than the Marcos government of quelling dissent and exercising state surveillance over its citizens. 

If you live in a country that ruthlessly and efficiently practises censorship, that ranks its citizens according to a social credit system with its attendant rewards and punishments, that uses cameras and other devices to monitor its citizens’ movements on ground and online and outside the country (to the extent that it can kidnap former citizens who are now citizens of other countries and “extradite” them to China to be detained), and that routinely violates the human rights of its citizens with impunity, you would expect its citizens to be reticent if not circumspect when they speak to outsiders (including the press, which is where presumably Monsod gets her information about China from) about their real thoughts about China. 

I have colleagues and friends from Mainland China with whom I have had frank, private conversations over the years, and I can testify – at least based on fieldwork I have conducted over the years in China and talking to Chinese colleagues and informants and reading books on Chinese politics and culture – that it is not true that there is no dissent, or that people are not critical of their government. 

Chinese people’s distrust of their government is evident in the outcry resulting from the tainted milk and drugs scandals, in the fact that citizens from the countryside have made the long trek to Beijing to lodge complaints against the corruption and injustice of government officials.   

Monsod should do more fieldwork, but then what do you expect from newspaper columnists these days who don’t bother to do on-the-ground research, or even read scholarly works (of which there are plenty that argue that the concept of “China” is problematic because it is not necessarily conflated with the mainland state) that give a more nuanced picture of what is happening inside China?

As for her so-called observation that “a Chinese-Filipino will never ever state unequivocally that he/she is a Filipino first, and a Chinese second (meaning, his loyalty is to the Philippines),” well, “never ever” is such a blanket term! 

Really, never? I would have offered myself as an example of someone with unequivocal loyalty to ’Pinas, and also with a brother and two out of two male cousins married to Filipinos who do not identify as Chinese Filipinos (but maybe Monsod wants to discriminate against Pinoys of Indian ancestry, as well, so that would leave me with one out of two male cousins married to “Filipino women,” plus two out of 3 female cousins married to non-Chinese Filipinos). 

But unfortunately, I don’t move in the rarefied circles that Monsod swans around in. Some of us are too busy earning a living, OFW-style, and remitting money home (and by home I mean ’Pinas, not China). 

I’m not saying there are no Chinese Filipinos who may hold conservative views about marrying non-Chinese Filipinos, but such attitudes have in fact become much more relaxed since the integration of the Chinese into Filipino society and more Tsinoys are marrying Pinoys. There are studies that show that younger generations of Tsinoys are more open to marrying non-Chinese Filipinos, and have done so.  

Moreover, if Monsod stops to analyze the reason for such an attitude in the first place, she would find that behind the stereotypical invocation of racial/cultural difference lie the historically fraught issues of “class” and “social status,” the fear of marrying below one’s station. This explains why historically Chinese mestizos tended to marry among themselves or else marry “up” by taking Spaniards or Spanish mestizos as brides or husbands. (The fact that Doña Victorina takes the lame Spaniard Tiburcio as her husband in Rizal’s novels shows that this was a common practice among elite Filipinos.) 

You think if a Zobel de Ayala or a Villar or Binay asked for the hand of one of these Chinese Filipinos’ daughters, the Chinese Filipinos would object to the marriage? (Well, maybe some Chinese Filipinos would object to their children marrying Villars or Binays, not because they are Filipinos, but because they are trapos.) 

More, Chinese Filipinos who are poor or of modest means, as Wickberg argues, tend to “disappear” into the Filipino community, and they have always freely married Pinoys. I know plenty of Tsinoys married to Pinoys, but, like I said, I don't move in the same circles as our so-called Pinoy elites, so I’m in no position to disabuse Monsod of her rather blinkered and limited powers of observation. 

As for the statement that “most of our billionaires are Chinese-Filipinos” and that “they are some of the country’s most hated employers,” Monsod should have the guts to come out and name names, so that we have an exact idea of who she is referring to and why their companies’ practices make them such “hated employers” and do something about it. (Did SWS do a survey about ’Pinas’ “most hated employers”? I'd like to see the statistics.)  

This kind of blanket statement, however, raises a number of questions, none of which the article sees fit to address: is Monsod saying that “Filipino,” whether billionaire or non-billionaire, employers are not purveyors of unfair/bad labor practices (the historical record shows otherwise)? What does ethnicity have to do with being a bad employer? Does being Chinese Filipino make one a bad employer? Or is it the case that these billionaires and employers’ Chinese-Filipino ethnicity makes them objects and targets of racist resentment? 

It is easier to give vent to racist hatred rather than give serious thought to the exploitative nature of capitalism per se and ask why our laws and employment practices allow big companies to get away with unfair labor practices. 

And, finally, what do unfair labor practices have to do with distrust of China? I’ve had my wallet snatched, been mugged and pickpocketed, while I was a student and a University of the Philippines instructor taking jeepneys and buses in ’Pinas, but I would never use my personal experience and “observations” to make a blanket generalization like, “I don't trust the Philippines” or “Filipinos are thieves.” This doesn't make any sense.

Monsod ends with this argument: “So does it boil down to: We don’t trust China because we don’t trust Chinese and Chinese-Filipinos? On the face of it, no. So let’s go back to the SWS survey. We don’t trust them because we see that they are taking away what is ours (including what has been ruled to be ours by an international court). Because they treat our fishermen like dirt.”  

I understand (and fully sympathize and side with) my fellow Filipinos’ feelings about China’s militancy on the territorial disputes and ill treatment of our fisherman, but the SWS surveys do not tell us anything about how Filipinos perceive the Chinese in the Philippines, let alone distinguish among the sub-categories of Philippine Chinese, let alone provide any analysis of why such sentiments exist. 

Is Monsod, then, saying that Filipino resentment of China is fed by Filipino resentment of Chinese Filipinos “because we see that they are taking away what is ours” (and, here, she is not just referring any more to territory, but to something far broader – patrimony, perhaps?).  

Here is where Monsod’s own unexamined racism rears its ugly head. If Monsod accepts the fact that Chinese Filipinos are already Filipinos, then their ethnicity should not be an issue at all. “Most of our billionaires are Chinese Filipinos” and “they are some of this country’s most hated employers” only become issues if you think that: 1) Chinese Filipinos don't have the right to become billionaires or to run big companies; and 2) the fact that they do means they are “taking away what is ours.” That, Reader, is racism, plain and simple. 

Now Monsod might say in her own defense that she is merely explaining Filipino “distrust,” but I don’t see how retailing the age-old stereotypes and assumptions about the alien Chinese does anything to clarify matters. In fact, it only muddies the issue. I began reading “Why Filipinos distrust China” thinking I might learn something from it, and came away with the despairing thought that what the Monsod essay “boils down to” is this: “We don’t trust China because we don’t trust Chinese and Chinese-Filipinos” because, after all this time, and alas, we are still racists. – Rappler.com   

Caroline S. Hau is professor at the Center for Southeast Asian Studies, Kyoto University, and the author of Elites and Ilustrados in Philippine Culture and The Chinese Question: Ethnicity, Nation, and Region in and Beyond the Philippines, both published by Ateneo de Manila University Press. She carries a Philippine passport, and no other. 

President Duterte unleashed his most recent tirade against the Catholic Church by accusing Caloocan Bishop Pablo Virgilio David of stealing Church donations and using them for his own personal use. He has even accused Bishop David of being into drugs and threatened to cut off his head.

To Duterte’s attacks, Bishop David gave a most Christian response when he simply shrugged off the allegations and attributed Duterte’s attacks to a very sick man who does not know what he is talking about. The bishop was alluding to persistent rumors that the President is suffering from various ailments.

"My parents never taught me to steal,” David said in a Facebook post. He earlier asked the public to pray for Duterte for he is a “very sick man" after the President called saints “gago” (fools) and “lasenggo” (drunkards). And this was after telling Filipinos to emulate them on All Saints’ Day.

Those who know Bishop David will just laugh off the absurdity of the President’s verbal attacks. Bishop David, affectionately called Bishop Ambo, who hails from Guagua Pampanga, is a simple man of God.

His ascent in the hierarchy of the Catholic Church (spanning several decades) – from an ordinary priest of Pampanga to Bishop of Caloocan, has never been tainted by any scandal, much less by any accusations of stealing. That is why his appointment as bishop of Caloocan, which has some of the poorest communities in Metro Manila, was welcomed enthusiastically by its residents.

On a personal note, I have known Bishop David for 40 years, since 1978 when I saw the light and shifted to Philosophy in college. He was two years ahead of me in Ateneo de Manila and I did not meet him personally then, but he was always looked up to for his brilliance as a predivinity student and then as a philosophy teacher. In more recent years and months, we have bumped into each other to share the same platforms for common advocacies.

I must confess how awed I am by this bishop – his simplicity, integrity, devotion and love for the poor, and holiness. The priests, religious and people of Pampanga whom he served for decades and his flock now in Caloocan (including government officials, military officers, and police brass) would say this too and would find the Duterte attacks strange and utterly without basis.

Dangerous accusations

But these words of the President are extremely dangerous. Many persons the President has called these names have ended up dead. And so, I have to say that it is entirely possible for us one day to wake up to, or see news in our cell phones that scream: Bishop David has been killed!

Normally, in situations like this, I would counsel the threatened person to leave the country, to let things cool off. But I will not do that in this case.

The truth is that we need Bishop David to be with us here in the Philippines. His flock in Caloocan needs him.

We need Bishop David, who, thankfully, is the Vice President of the Catholic Bishops' Conference of the Philippines, to continue to speak truth to power. We need this Shepherd of Caloocan to be fierce in defending the rights of his sheep being slaughtered in the war against illegal drugs.

Bishop David once described his diocese of Caloocan as killing fields, vigorously denouncing the extrajudicial murders. "The fight against illegal drugs must indeed be relentless, but the killings – either by the police or by masked vigilantes – must be stopped! This will remain as our stubborn and relentless plea."

We need Church leaders who will describe rightly what we are facing: a death of conscience by those who justify the killings. We need leaders brave enough to call vigilantes what they are: “termites and Judases.”

In the midst of this seeming normalization of violence, Bishop Ambo never tires repeating the mantra of non-violent response: “Let us never allow ourselves to be motivated by anger or hatred, resentment, revenge, or the instinct to retaliate or return evil for evil. Let us believe in the innate nobility of the human spirit. Let us not give evil the pleasure of having the last say, by always putting on check our tendency to hit back when we are hurt. Let us not allow the enemy to mold us into his own image and likeness.”

'Stop the killings'

Bishop David has earned the ire of the President and is now a target because the good bishop refuses to take things passively, fearlessly calling a spade a spade and calling out the public to take action against the permeating evil.

We cannot accept these senseless killings sitting down simply because some of us think that it is good for society. By any standard, extrajudicial killings are wrong, even if it means killing criminals. In Bishop David’s own words: “Our desperate plea is only this: For God’s sake, stop the killings; start the healing!”

More importantly, Bishop David provides a better alternative to the vision of Duterte’s unwinnable war on how to fight the scourge of illegal drugs in our country. According to David, addiction to drugs is a disease, a serious illness that must be dealt not with bullets, but with rehabilitation.

He refutes claims that criminals can no longer be reformed and should not be given second chances: “If we were to hold that as true, that will be as good as giving up one of the most important principles of our faith as Christians that we all live only by grace and mercy of a forgiving God . . . Who are we to condemn, if our own God refuses to condemn us? Who of us do not sometimes stray from the right paths? Who of us does not commit mistakes? Who of us does not get sick – not just physically but sometimes also mentally and spiritually?”

A known biblical scholar, Bishop Ambo not only defends his flock through his incisive intellect but personally attends to the concerns of the victims’ families, diligently documenting the deaths of the hapless victims. This speaks volumes of his leadership style.

He is not content to ensconce himself in the bishop’s residence overseeing his diocese by way of remote control but is willing to sully his hands attending to the needs of his flock. That is why he has made Caloocan a place of mission stations, bringing the Church from the traditional parishes into the neighborhoods of the poor where most of the killings are happening.

For Bishop David, the killing of priests, whom he likened to martyrs, is not something to be afraid of. "They show us how valuable priesthood is. It is willing to stand up amidst persecution." 

Impelled by a strong sense of mission, Bishop David is resolute in defending his flock. "Tungkulin ko bilang munting obispo ng Caloocan ang pag-ingatan ang kawan na ipinagkatiwala sa akin ng Panginoon.” (It is my duty as the bishop of Caloocan to care for the flock entrusted to me by the Lord.)

In one of the gospels this week, anticipating the season of Advent, Jesus Christ speaks of shepherds like Bishop David: “You will be hated by all because of my name, but not a hair on your head will be destroyed. By your perseverance you will secure your lives."

Bishop David is not hated by all, probably not by many. But there are powerful people that do hate him because he loves the poor and defends them, because he loves the Lord and the people of God with all his heart and with all his soul and with all his mind.

The shepherd of Caloocan talks the talk and walks the walk, unmindful of his own personal safety amidst a murderous environment. I am afraid he is walking to martyrdom. But if martyrdom is the plan of God for him, no one can stop that from happening. But we can accompany him. I will. – Rappler.com

The Philippines is not a member of the G20 – the grouping of the largest economies in the world – and so unlike the recent ASEAN and East Asia Summits here, as well as the APEC Summit in Papua New Guinea, Philippine President Rodrigo Duterte will not be in the room as leaders gather in   in the 13th meeting of the Group of 20 in Buenos Aires, Argentina, starting on Friday, November 30. 

It is the first G20 Summit to take place in South America. Yet, even there, far from the Indo-Pacific, the ramifications of ongoing US-China trade tensions playing out in East Asia and Southeast Asia will continue to be felt. Fireworks may well be in order with both US President Donald Trump and China President Xi Jinping in attendance in Argentina. That was certainly the case in PNG even without Trump in attendance.

For the first time ever in its nearly 30 years, the APEC Summit ended in disarray, without a final communiqué. The Wall Street Journal reported that China effectively torpedoed a communiqué over a single sentence: “We agreed to fight protectionism including all unfair trade practices.” China’s worries, no doubt, could well have been over concerns that its own trade practices are being recognized increasingly as unfair. 

Despite the United States’ having taken the lead in imposing tariffs on billions of Chinese good in response to what the Trump Administration sees as unfair trade practices, it was China and Xi Jinping that were on the defensive in PNG.

Opportunity for trade reset

A US-China tariff war is sure to continue to produce very real economic consequences, and political fallout, in both nations as well as across ASEAN. It, however, also presents an opportunity for a trade reset. 

The ongoing “tariffs war” provides a chance to reexamine the trade relationship between the world's two largest economies and perhaps set a new course that would address some of the elephant-in-the-room issues of China's trade practices.

As we have argued in the Los Angeles Times and in other media across the United States, whatever else one might think of President Trump’s actions, he is confronting China about its unfair trade practices and theft of American intellectual property when too many – including in the IndoPacific region – shy away from the truth for fear of Chinese reprisal.

It bears remembering that the Chinese trade practices that irk Trump truly do bedevil Americans and others doing business with China, and they go back decades, to at least to the mid-1980s, when China under Deng Xiaoping was opening to the world.

Once the US formally recognized the People’s Republic in 1978, American businesses were tantalized by the prospect of China's untapped market of one billion consumers. What American companies soon discovered, though, was that this trade partner did not play by the accepted rules.

China’s repeated and unashamed theft of intellectual property has been especially egregious and damaging. A 2017 report by the independent and bipartisan US Commission on the Theft of American Intellectual Property put the annual cost of IP theft by all parties at $255-600 billion in counterfeit goods, pirated software and stolen trade secrets; these figures do not include the full cost of patent infringement. The commission named China “the world's principle IP infringer.”

A now-emboldened China is pushing its "Made in China 2025" campaign, an ambitious plan not only to upgrade Chinese industry – most notably in advanced sectors like information technology, robotics and pharmaceuticals, where IP is key – but to compete with and ultimately displace foreign companies domestically and globally.

To that end, it has continued to aggressively push foreign companies to hand over technology and IP rights in exchange for market access, a possible violation of World Trade Organization (WTO) rules.

'You had it coming'

China’s leaders no doubt see things very differently, and the Chinese expression “huo gai” might well apply. Loosely translated, it means “you had it coming.”

If you leave your door unlocked and get burgled, huo gai– it was your own fault because you didn’t lock up. Similarly, if US businesses do not take measures to protect their own IP, it's huo gai. China waltzes in and makes off with it.

That's something the Philippines too should keep in mind as it seeks to turn Xi's promises of loans and other support for infrastructure projects in the Philippines into reality.

Trump's approach, while unpalatable to some and unsettling in the short term, could result in a much-needed new chapter in US-China trade as well as in China’s trade with individual members of ASEAN and other Indo-Pacific nations, including the Philippines.

If nothing else, Trump has unequivocally called China out for behavior that should not be tolerated, and paved the way for other nations to do so too.

The APEC Summit may well have ended in disarray but it also sets the stage for progress and a more successful G20 summit in Argentina, with all of the world’s leading economies coming together to fight all unfair trade practices.

First though, China must look inward, and a face-saving deal be envisioned for and by all. If that happens, the Philippines too will benefit. – Rappler.com

Curtis S. Chin, a former U.S. ambassador to the Asian Development Bank, is managing director of advisory firm RiverPeak Group, LLC. Charlene L. Fu is a freelance editor, reporter and translator. She worked in Beijing from 1986 to 2008, much of that time as an Associated Press Correspondent. Follow Curtis on Twitter at: @CurtisSChin

This December, negotiators from all countries will convene at the 24th Conference of Parties (COP24) in Katowice, Poland, for two weeks to finalize how the Paris climate agreement will be implemented. The accord, which was adopted 3 years ago, will enter into force in 2020. It aims to limit global warming to 1.5ºCelsius (C). (READ: Will the Paris agreement work?)

The urgency to stop climate change was heightened amid both new scientific evidence and recent events. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change found that should business continue as usual, global warming will reach 1.5ºC as early as 12 years from now. Any further temperature increase will intensify impact being felt today, from coral bleaching and sea level rise to droughts and wildfires.

For the Philippines, the outcomes of the upcoming talks are crucial to both its immediate and long-term survival. Given its active role in international negotiations and as one of the most vulnerable countries to climate change, there is a lot on the line for the country at COP24.

An urgent agenda

One of the main disputes to be tackled at COP24 is how to ensure that developed countries will receive guaranteed financial aid from high-emitting, industrialized nations. Under the accord, wealthy countries are expected to raise $100 billion by 2020. Without the proper mechanisms to ensure funding, vulnerable countries would continue to bear the brunt of more extreme events.

With adaptation as its primary mode of climate action, the Philippines needs to emphasize the security and efficiency of such mechanisms if it will implement the necessary projects at the local level.

Another key discussion will focus on how global stocktake processes will be reported, monitored, and reviewed.

For the Philippines and other vulnerable countries, it is vital to push for the inclusion of loss and damage in the assessment of progress made during implementation. This is to allow for more efficient changes to the means of implementation and support. It will also allow these countries to adapt and mitigate more easily, considering that the projected impact would likely worsen throughout the 21st century.     

Furthermore, guidelines will be developed for the Nationally Determined Contributions (NDCs), which serve as each country’s strategy for voluntarily reducing its greenhouse gas emissions and adapting to climate change. Specifically, negotiators will figure out aspects of this document, including the timeframe of implementation and different guidelines for developed and developing countries.

The importance of curbing emissions is more urgent than ever, given that the impact of climate change is still being felt across the world. The UN Environment recently reported that despite global efforts, carbon dioxide emissions increased in 2017 due to economic growth – a first instance in 4 years. With current pledges on course to fall short of the 1.5-degree increase target, boosted ambitions are needed from all countries.

The Philippines, which is currently crafting its NDC, needs to ensure that the finalized guidelines would allow it to achieve its targets without compromising its sustainable development. As its current plan relies on conditionally reducing its emissions only with financial and technological support from industrialized countries, active participation in the development of the Paris rulebook is necessary. Similarly, its negotiators also have to ensure that the interests of the country’s most impoverished sectors will be prioritized during this crucial meeting.

Perhaps the most critical of these sectors is agriculture. A weak to moderate El Niño event is predicted to affect the Philippines during the first quarter of 2019. While not as strong as the episode experienced in 2016 that led to P10 billion of losses in agricultural production and the infamous Kidapawan incident, the potential impact can still be exacerbated by the poor conditions of farming communities and increased global emissions.

The projected dry spells and droughts will be most severe in Luzon, which hosts large farming areas. Given that this situation could repeat for the next few decades, it is vital for the Philippine delegation to negotiate terms that could help the agricultural areas adapt as soon as possible.   

The increasing pace and severity of climate change impact need to be matched by urgent and intensive actions from the individual to the international level. While it is key for countries to enact measures at the domestic front, synergy at the global level is just as important to achieve targets to fight climate change and its causes which are of a much bigger scale.

It is undeniable that the solutions to the climate crisis already exist, yet some of them inevitably need support from governments and institutions. Just as it has done in previous COPs, the Philippines needs to take an even more active role in navigating the complex web of climate negotiations and push for the proper implementation of the Paris agreement. It needs to act like its future depends on it, because our future depends on it. – Rappler.com

John Leo Algo is the Science Policy Associate of the Climate Reality Project Philippines. He will earn his MS Atmospheric Science degree from the Ateneo de Manila University in December 2018. He is also a citizen journalist.