Of all the things I could lose in the last few days of traveling in Japan, I certainly didn't want to lose my wallet.

But it was nowhere to be found.

I was in Hiroshima with my mom and sister when I realized I lost it. It had all my cash and cards: credit, debit, and the travel card I needed to return to Osaka and board our plane back to the Philippines.

Naturally, I panicked.

We were staying at a capsule hostel in Hiroshima, so my initial suspicion was a thief might have grabbed it from inside my quarters while I was away. There's a precedent for this – my GoPro got stolen before at a hostel in Amsterdam.

I pulled out the cushion of my capsule's bed and shook it, hoping for something to fall. I repacked my travel backpack and found nothing. I ran to our hostel hostess to inquire about it, but she said none of their staff had seen it.

Already fearing the worst, I had to drag my mom and sister along with me to retrace our steps from where we were the previous night.

My mom and sister were supposed to take a day stroll in Hiroshima's memorial park, then catch a ferry to the picturesque Miyajima island and catch a sunset by the bay. All that was scrapped for the search.

Fortunately, the hunt succeeded in under two hours, thanks to the honest and efficient Japanese. I even got my wallet back cleaner than when I lost it.

Retracing my steps

There's really no strategy for searching when you lose something abroad. It's just the same as losing something home. You just ask yourself, "When was the last time I saw it?"

I recalled buying bottled water at a Lawson convenience store the night before. I also bought a novel from a bookstore in bustling Hondori Street.

We first dropped by the Lawson where I bought my bottled water. The counters were manned by different cashiers already. The previous night, men rang up customers' late-night purchases. That morning, two women were on duty.

I went straight to the woman who I thought looked Filipino. But when I asked her "Eigo okay?" (English okay?), she immediately said no. Still, I hoped that I could make myself understood with hand gestures.

"I (pointing to myself), lost (shaking my hands) my wallet (folding my palms over and over) last night (pointing to my back)," I said. She just shook her head and said no, then pointed me to the other woman, who was by then already unoccupied.

I changed my strategy. I typed what I wanted to say on Google Translate and showed her the translation written in Japanese.

She went to the back of their store, probably to check whether the night staff might have left a wallet there, but she returned with nothing.

Found, but not there

We then walked to the bookstore along Hondori Street.

It looked like the bookstore had just opened, as some of its staff were still arranging shelves. I showed the translation flashed on my phone to a woman at the counter.

She lit up, and said, "Yes!"

Finally, a sign of hope. The woman spoke with the staff who were cataloguing books behind her. One of the staffers said it was with the police, and my heart started beating faster once again.

As I was on vacation from covering the Philippine National Police, speaking with a cop was the last thing I wanted to happen.

As we were taking the 10-minute walk from Lawson to the bookstore I had read that there was also a long list of procedures I needed to follow to retrieve my wallet. These forms were also in Japanese.

While I would say I'm used to speaking to cops, this was new territory for me.

As it would turn out, I was lucky the incident happened in a place like Japan. The bookstore staffers pulled out a map, encircled where the police station is, and drew a line that I should follow to get there. They even gave me a note written in Japanese to give to the cops.

It was only a 5-minute walk to the station.

Speaking to Japanese cops

Only two cops, a man and a woman, were inside the police station when I entered. I handed my phone with the translation, and the bookstore's note, but they seemed unable to recall a black wallet from the nearby bookstore.

As I began to worry again, the policeman spread out a lost and found form. It was in Japanese, but the cop was kind enough to fill out the form for me.

I handed my phone with Google Translate, and we "spoke" through there (thankfully I was able to quickly download a Japanese keyboard with their high-speed internet). The cop typed in Japanese and I read the English translation. I typed in English, and he read the translation in Japanese characters. This went on for around 20 minutes.

He calmly asked where I was staying in Hiroshima, when I would be leaving, what my wallet looked like when I last saw it, and what was inside it.

With the form completed, the other cop picked up the phone and made a call. She read out what the first cop wrote down to who I believe was a staffer at the lost-and-found section of the Hiroshima City police station.

After she hung up, the policewoman gave me a reassuring look and said my wallet was at the Hiroshima City police station.

It had been brought, in a span of hours, from the bookstore to the Hondori Street police station, and to their main office.

She brought out a paper stub and wrote a code. She said I only had to present it to the main station, which was also just 5 minutes on foot.

Finding my wallet

At the Hiroshima City police station, I easily spotted the lost-and-found section, as the departments were labeled with giant numbers. I walked over to an open window and handed the stub.

The woman at the counter shuffled to a drawer behind her and, in a matter of seconds, I finally saw my wallet, pulled out from the drawer and wrapped in plastic with a code printed on it.

The fine print matched my stub. She gave me a form which recorded, in Japanese, what was inside my wallet when they found it.

I inspected it and found it cleaner. The cops had flattened and arranged the pesos and dollars I had haphazardly placed inside my wallet. However, I found no yen.

Someone might have stolen it while the wallet was being brought from the bookstore to the police station, I thought.

Before I could ask the woman about it, she said they recorded how much yen was inside and took it out for safekeeping. She placed a small plastic tray stacked with new and crisp yen bills in front of me.

I erupted into celebration then and there, showering the woman with my most heartfelt "Arigatou gozaimasu!" (Thank you!)

With time to spare, we were even able to go to the Hiroshima Castle and walk around Hondori more to shop for pasalubong.

While I was in a state of panic the whole time, there was a part of me that kept on saying, "You're in Japan, you won't lose it here."

I guess this now-proven assumption was borne out of days of experiencing the kindness and efficiency of the Japanese.

The trains arrive and leave on the dot, with everyone falling in line to exit and enter. Priority seats in buses are left vacant, even during packed rides, for the elderly and the pregnant. Cleanliness is a sacred rule in public spaces. The country consistently records one of the lowest crime rates in the world.

I wish I could say the same back home, but we, as a country and as a people, have a long way to go.

– Rappler.com

“Breakdown in humanity.” ’Yan ang tawag ng isang senador sa pagkamatay ni Kian delos Santos, ang 17-anyos na binatilyong binaril ng mga pulis sa Caloocan habang nagsasagawa ng kampanyang “one- time, big-time” laban sa droga. Binaril siyang “nakaluhod tapos nasubsob“ sa isang madilim na eskinita. 

Tinamnan ang bangkay niya ng isang revolver na inilagay sa kanyang kaliwang kamay. Ayon sa kanyang ama, right-handed si Kian.

Kung titingnan, ang simula ng pagkalusaw ng ating pagka-makatao ay simula ng pagdausdos natin sa kahayupan.

Dahil hayop lamang ang babaril sa sentido ng isang nakaluhod na binatilyo. Hayop lamang ang hindi maaantig sa pakiusap ni Kian na “Huwag po, may test po ako bukas.” Mga hayop lamang ang makasisikmurang magpatumba ng 80 suspek sa 3 lugar sa loob ng 4 na araw sa ilalim ng nakapangungutyang bansag na “one-time, big-time,” na parang nakatambyolo ang buhay ng mga tao. 

At asal-hayop din ang mga taong hindi naaantig dito.  

Totoong isang tagumpay ng sistema ng hustisya ang hatol na “guilty” sa 3 pulis Caloocan. Sa isang banda, ibinabalik nito ang ilang tiwalang naglaho sa katarungan sa ating bansa.   

Hindi pa tapos ang laban, ang susunod na yugto: ang pakikipagbuno sa paglimot. Hindi dahil gusto nating manatili ang poot at pagkakawatak-watak.  

Hindi lang ito tungkol kay Kian; hindi lang tungkol sa 5,000 pang inaaming namatay sa war vs drugs; hindi lang tungkol sa 15,000 pang hindi inaaming nasawi sa giyera ng pamahalaang Duterte at sa mga vigilante. Ito'y tungkol sa atin– sa kolektibong budhi na tila manhid na sa patayan, gaano man karami.

Habang ginugunita natin ang pagkitil sa buhay ng binatilyong malayo pa sana ang mararating, itinatakwil natin ang madugong pamana ng giyera kontra droga: ang lima-singkong halaga ng buhay, ang pagbibingi-bingihan sa harap ng karahasan, at ang pananahimik sa harap ng paglapastangan ng mga pinapahalagahan natin bilang Kristiyano at komunidad. 

Walang 'sing sakit mawalan ng anak na iyong inaruga at iginapang sa pag-aaral. Pero mas masakit isipin na walang hustisya ang kanyang pagkamatay. Maliban kay Kian, marami pang ibang menor-de-edad: sina Althea Barbon, Hideyoshi Kawata, Joshua Cumilang, Carl Arnaiz, Danica Mae Garcia, Francis Mañosca, San Niño Batucan, Kristine Joy Sailog, Jayross Brondial, Michael Diaz, Jonel Segovia, Sonny Espinosa, Angelito Soriano, Angel Fernandez. Ilan lang sila sa mga musmos na biktima ng giyera na ito sa mga aspalto ng Pilipinas. 

Mayroong 'di bababa sa 17 tokhang na kasong nakahain sa mga korte. Sana’y maging inspirasyon ang conviction ng mga parak na pumatay kay Kian sa mga pamilya na magpursige. Totoong may mga kasong dekada na ay hindi pa nareresolba at walang matatanaw na bukang-liwayway. Pero lagi nating tandaan, na paminsan-minsan, nagtatagumpay ang hustisya. At habang dumarami ang nahahatulan, lalong nagigising ang mga korte sa damdamin ng mamamayang uhaw sa hustisya.

Sa mga maykaya sa buhay at mulat ang mata sa hirap na dinaranas ng mga pamilyang naghahangad ng hustisya, tumulong tayong pondohan ang ganitong mga pagsisikap. Sa mga abugado, kailangan kayo ng mga pamilya ng mga biktima – kailangan nila ng mga mahuhusay na tagapagtanggol na handang tumanggap ng kaso ng mahihirap, pro bono. At sa midya, huwag nating iwan ang mga kuwento ng malawakang pagyurak sa halaga sa buhay. Ang mga mamamahayag ang megaphone upang buhayin ang alaala nina Kian. #RememberKian. – Rappler.com 

“Safety is an act of compromise.” That was my ending statement in the last debate tournament that I competed in. But after witnessing recent incidents of fraternity-related violence (FRV) brought upon by Upsilon Sigma Phi, I take my statement back. Safety is supposed to be a naturally given privilege. Instead, it turned into a cause we continuously fight for amidst the rash, oppressive, patriarchal society, made even more difficult by fraternities and entities amplifying such social cancers.

Perpetuation of violence and misogyny

Weeks after cases of frat wars around the area of UP Diliman were reported, the said fraternity flexed another display of toxic masculinity shown through the alleged leaked screenshots of their group chat conversation. Their words spoke of intense provocation against women and marginalized groups, promoting the culture of misogyny, Islamophobia and discrimination. (READ: More groups slam 'violent, misogynist' frat-linked chat)

Some argue that these are mere words and are not extended to actions, that these statements are only a mechanism for these immature frat boys to vent out hormonally-induced rants. But we often overlook the power in words; the subliminal intent hidden between words that enable a person to actually carry them out.

I have not experienced nor witnessed fraternity violence firsthand, but I have read volumes of stories resonating the violence being perpetuated in initiations led by organizations such as fraternities. Coupled with those stories, this alleged leaked conversation is enough to invoke fear while I walk alone along the roads of my university– an unnecessary fear yielded by these groups enjoying luxury in impunity.

Defeated purpose

What’s even more tragic is the larger entity that this ‘brotherhood’ is supposed to embody—the University of the Philippines itself. By name, it is their calling and duty to make their group a sign of youth movement towards societal change. Instead, they became perpetrators of toxic masculinity, misogyny, and enablers of violence against marginalized groups, such as the LGBTQ+ community and the Lumad.

The threatening frat wars and offensive remarks alleged to come from the fraternity warrant more than a sincere public apology. But the lonsi (Upsilon Sigma Phi members) even failed to deliver such simple compensation for what they have done. They are not troubled by the fact that their group is promoting a culture that the university is passionately fighting against – impunity, violence and misogyny.

Of impunity and silencing dissent

The more passionate you are for speaking out and standing for what is right, the more you place yourself in greater peril at the hands of the perpetrators.

The university is considered unsafe for people who choose to go against such oppressive social injustices borne out of practices conducted by frats. It is even more tragic how the admins of the university fail to protect the people who unleash dissent against entities disturbing the balance, peace and harmony that all of us should freely enjoy. The admin had shown little to no response with regards to this controversy until it alarmed the mainstream press. (READ: [OPINION | Dash of SAS] Campus violence and toxic rhetoric – where are the adults?)

Mobilize and push for our safety

Despite this display of patriarchal vehemence, we should not be scared of continuing the battle for a safe, non-discriminative society. If anything, this is the time for us to fiercely fight for what is right – for us to muster a collective, collaborative mob against these groups perpetuating and upholding ideologies that go against our fundamental philosophy for an equal society.

We can only achieve what we have envisioned if we choose to participate in movements to call out for the rightful punishment and removal of these fraternities. 

Remaining in a silent struggle can never hand the peace and balance that we have always dreamed to enjoy in our society. We should not hide away from the facade of dominance shown by these groups. Rather, we should continue the battle for justice and equality. (READ: From walkouts to dismantled banners, UP community protests frat-related violence)

This war should be ours. And it will be never won by a bunch of perpetrators and chauvinists. – Rappler.com

Carmela Isabelle P. Disilio, 18 years old, is a BS Development Communication student at UP Los Baños. She's constantly curious about the human condition and seeks to answer life's greatest questions. You can email her at cpdisilio@up.edu.ph or follow her on twitter. 

I saw orange when I read Solita Monsod’s most recent diatribe against Chinese-Filipinos. Orange, of course, being the color of the racist United States president, who is known for doubling down after being called out for racist speech. 

The Trumpian pattern is simple, and Mareng Winnie has followed it to a T: make insensitive remarks that wound an ethnic community, get called out for those remarks by experts and members of that community, avoid confronting your mistakes by playing the victim card.

Monsod did not engage any of the points raised by my colleague Caroline Hau (or those by the leading historian of Chinese-Filipinos, Richard Chu) that showed, among other things, why we should consider Tsinoys as full members of our national community, rather than outsiders who are “taking away what is ours.” Instead, Monsod complains about a “hailstorm of fury” consisting of ad hominems directed against her. That’s thick. You accuse an entire group of fellow Filipinos of predation based only on personal observation, then you complain about ad hominems? 

Monsod has rightly earned her reputation as an inspiring and effective teacher. And I suppose that in her basic economics classes she taught her students the principles of scholarly inquiry – principles violated in her two racist columns. If Monsod students argued like Monsod, they would fail Monsod. 

The esteemed teacher begins her response thus: “First, I wish Ms Hau would read the column again, and she will realize that some of her observations are way off.” Which parts should she read again? Which observations are off? We do not know, because Monsod just moves on to her second point, claiming: “Second, I want to remind Ms Hau that the basic fact I started from is that the Filipinos distrust China.” She then asserts that Filipinos distrust China because they conflate the Chinese state with Chinese people. This opinion, she concludes, must be based on “their experiences with the Chinese people they meet,” Tsinoys included. 

Really? If it is true that Filipinos confuse the Chinese state with Chinese people, and if it is true the Filipinos dislike Chinese people, what makes Monsod think that this is because of real experiences and not prejudice? The literature on race relations shows that distrust of other ethnicities does not stem from actual interracial interaction (in fact, people with more exposure to other ethnicities  tend to exhibit less racial animus), but from unexamined prejudicial attitudes, such as “perceived intergroup threat” (emphasis mine). 

Monsod must know the difference between a descriptive and a normative statement. As a descriptive statement, it might be true that that non-Chinese Pinoys distrust Tsinoys (although, one cannot make this definitive conclusion from the SWS survey that Monsod cites, as it only refers to attitudes towards China, the state). As a normative statement, it is questionable to justify these prejudices. Monsod cannot weasel her way out of this pickle by claiming to just be the “messenger.”   

Justifying 'racist position'

The problem is that Monsod believes that anti-Tsinoy biases are valid.

And how does Monsod justify this racist position? Well, through wonderfully reliable “observations from personal experience” that Tsinoys will “never ever state unequivocally that he/she is a Filipino first…” Monsod makes a blanket statement (“never ever”) and justifies it with nothing but casual observation. No research required, just Mareng Monsod pronouncing ex-Cathedra. 

To be fair, Monsod does attempt to provide some proof, by citing the example of Teresita Ang-See, whom she claims went on the record and equivocated about her loyalties. This was a serious accusation against Ang-See, who, through Kaisa para sa Kaunlaran, has devoted her life to proving that Tsinoys are Pinoys first. 

Serious accusations require serious proof. If See did go on the record, surely Monsod could have provided a quote? Barring that, she should have at least told us which record. Unfortunately for Monsod, we now know that her “evidence” is a product of a race-baiting fishing expedition. 

According to Ang-See, Monsod tried to bait her on TV. “When I said I would not support any war between the Philippines and China,” See explains, “she insisted on interpreting this as disloyalty to the Philippines.” If See is correct, then Monsod cannot distinguish between pacifism and disloyalty. Many non Tsinoy Filipinos, myself included, adhere to the same anti-war position that See does. Does Monsod think our loyalties are suspect as well? 

Now the ball is really in Monsod’s court. If she wants to dispute Ang-See’s account of the events, she has to show us the record of the interview. I doubt she can or she will. But one may hope. 

Nazi-derived argument

Monsod’s final point is a Nazi-derived argument, couched in vaguely economistic language: “Chinese-Filipinos comprise less than 2 percent of our population, but they comprise at least 50 percent of our richest listed in Forbes magazine. You don’t think that causes resentment, and even distrust?” Replace the “Chinese-Filipinos” with “Jew” and “our [Philippines]” with “Germany,” and voila, you’re in Hitlerian turf. 

But if Tsinoys are Filipinos, their race should not disqualify them from being billionaires (something Hau pointed out, but Monsod ignored). How can Tsinoys be “taking away what is ours” if they are already a part of us? Unless of course Monsod believes that brown-skinned Filipinos are more entitled to our country’s riches than Chinese Filipinos. In which case, does Monsod advocate differential property rights based on one’s ethnicity? Or different categories of citizenship?  The category “Filipino” is not a race, hence Tsinoys can be 100 percent Filipino.

But if Monsod believes that Filipino should be a race, maybe she should have to guts to tell us how she would define that race. Skin color tests perhaps?

The issue of Tsinoys has turned Monsod into a careless pundit, and she serves as a cautionary tale for young scholars like myself. Success in public service, a newspaper column, and the final word on a TV show can make one lazy. Faced with evidence-based accounts from our top experts on Tsinoy culture and history, Monsod responds with  “I merely stated my observations from personal experience,” and somehow thinks this is sufficient. Perhaps Monsod should try subjecting her opinions about Tsinoys to the peer-review process the way her interlocutors Hau, Ang-See, and Chu do. Maybe then she will realize the limits of personal observation. 

Beyond sloppy writing and argumentation, however, Monsod has displayed sloppy ethics. “My column must have struck a raw nerve there,” she muses. Yes it did, Mareng Winnie. Because you hurt people. You questioned the loyalties of an entire ethnic group – a group that, like all other groups, has its unsavory characters, but also its share of true patriots, who love our country as much as you do.

A number of your fans thought you would apologize after seeing the extent of your offense. Or at the very least modify your position. Instead, you doubled down. And in doing so, you have forever tainted your legacy of intellectual leadership.– Rappler.com
 

(Editor's note: Winnie Monsod is a member of Rappler's Board of Directors.)

The House of Representatives has approved on second reading a draft federal constitution benignly called “Resolution of Both Houses No 15” (RBH15). Under the respective Rules of the Senate and the House of Representatives, a “joint resolution,” which is what RBH 15 actually is, undergoes the same procedure as a bill, which must pass 3 readings in both chambers and must be signed by the President.

While RBH 15 is one step away from passing the House, there is no counterpart proceeding in the Senate for RBH 15 – at the moment. 

This week, we take a Deep Dive into some parts of RBH 15. Space limitations preclude us from discussing everything in RBH 15 so our Deep Dive will come in many parts.

The past made present again

One of the “Whereas” clauses of RBH 15 puts in context the reason behind RBH 15.

“WHEREAS, since the Twelfth Congress, stakeholders from different sectors of society have conducted studies, consultations, and submitted to the Congress of the Philippines several proposals to amend or revise the 1987 Constitution.”

The Twelfth Congress lasted from 2001 to 2004, coinciding with the first 3 years of the nine-year term of then-president now Speaker Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. It may be recalled that Mrs. Arroyo had attempted, as with her precedessors Fidel V. Ramos and Joseph Ejercito Estrada, to amend the 1987 Constitution through: (1) people’s initiative, (2) the proposal to convene a Constituent Assembly, and (3)  the calling of a Constitutional Convention. All of these attempts failed.

It is not surprising that, with President Duterte’s expressed desire to have a federal instead of a unitary government in place through an amendment of the Constitution, Speaker Arroyo would oblige.

Of all the presidents who had attempted to amend the Constitution (Benigno S. Aquino III being the only one who did not attempt to have the 1987 Constitution amended), she was the one who pursued it relentlessly. The reference to the Twelfth Congress is a reminder of what she had wanted to put in place by way of constitutional amendments had the efforts not been stymied by the Supreme Court as well as by lack of support from many sectors.

RBH 15, of which the Speaker is listed as the principal author, is an attempt to make the past present again.

Federalism through legislation

One of the most striking features of RBH 15 is its proposed Article XII (Local Governments and Federal States). In a nod to the President’s expressed desire to shift from unitary to federal government, RBH 15 provides in section 1 that “(t)here shall be federal states in the country as provided in this article.”

To carry out this mandate, section 12 then vests in Congress the power to create a federal state, upon a petition addressed to it, out of “any contiguous, compact, and adjacent provinces, highly urbanized and component cities, and cities and municipalities in metropolitan areas through a resolution in their respective bodies, subject to approval by a majority of the votes cast in a plebiscite in the political units affected.” This power shall be exercised, according to section 13, within one year from the filing of the bill that passed upon the petitions and initiatives by the passage of an organic act defining the basic structure of government consisting of a “unicameral territorial assembly” and “courts consistent with the provisions of their constitutions and national laws.”

This is a striking departure from the methodology proposed by the President’s Consultative Commission on Charter Change which, in its draft proposed Constitution, proposed the creation, by way of the Constitution itself,  sixteen (16) Federated Regions, the Bangsamoro and the Federated Region of the Cordilleras which shall be “permanent and indissoluble parts of the Federal Republic of the Philippines." 

No limits and restrictions

RBH 15 also removes all previous limitations set by the 1987 Constitution on congressional terms (Article VI, secs. 4 and 7 on the term limits of Senators and Members of the House), political dynasties (Article II, sec. 26, on the prohibition of political dynasties by law), the practice of professions (Article XII, sec. 14, par. 2 on the practice of professions, Article XVI, sec. 11 (2), par. 2 on the advertising industry), foreign ownership and investments (Article XII, sec. 2), and the preferential use of Filipino labor, domestic materials and locally produced goods and the mandate to adopt measures to make them competitive (Art. XII, sec. 12).

The deletion of congressional term limits and the mandate to pass legislation prohibiting political dynasties is clearly intended to encourage term-limited lawmakers to push strongly for the passage of RBH 15 in the House and in the Senate and its ratification at a plebiscite.

Should RBH 15 pass and become law and be ratified, all branches of government would continue to function in a transitory character until their successors are elected or appointed and duly qualified. They would then be eligible to run for office again on the 2^nd Monday of May 2022, presumably under a Federal state, as created by Congress.

The proposed removal of limits on ownership, practice of professions, as well as advertising, and the deletion of the “Filipino First” mandate under the 1987 Constitution practically signals that we are really “Open for Business.”

Bill of duties

In a throwback to the Marcos Constitution of 1973, RBH 15 proposes in Article IV a “Bill of Duties” coming after the “Bill of Rights” in Article III. The duties of every citizen under the proposed Article IV are:

• To be loyal to the Republic,
• To honor the flag,
• To defend the State,
• To contribute to its development and welfare,
• To uphold the Constitution and obey the laws,
• To pay taxes,
• To cooperate with the duly constituted authorities in the attainment and maintenance of the rule of law and of a peaceful, just, humane, and orderly society,
• To participate actively in public and civic affairs, contribute to good governance, honesty and integrity in the public service, and the vitality and viability of democracy.

These duties are characterized as “correlative” with the rights guaranteed under Article III and impose on the person the duty to exercise the rights responsibly and with due regard for the rights of others.

The proposed Article IV is almost identical with Article V of the 1973 Constitution, with the exception of the obligation to vote which is found in Article V, section 4 of the 1973 Constitution but not in RBH 15, Article IV.

Defining a “Bill of Duties” as “correlative” to the Bill of Rights runs counter to the notion that the Bill of Rights stands as a check on government intrusion into the rights of individuals. In People v. Marti, the Supreme Court characterized the Bill of Rights as a restriction against acts of the State and not acts of private individuals. In any balancing of interests between the acts of a State agent and an individual exercising his or her rights under the Bill of Rights, the balance would have to be tipped in favor of the individual. 

Imposing a “correlative” duty on an individual, as RBH 15 does, would create a “right” in favor of the State to demand the performance of certain acts from individuals that may be inconsistent with their free exercise of their rights. The addition of a “Bill of Duties” and the characterization of these duties as “correlative” are clearly inconsistent with the democratic ideals that RBH 15 professes to maintain and uphold. 

Dead in the water?

Clearly, RBH 15 proposes to accomplish through surgical precision what the PCCCC hoped to achieve by blunt force. It is nuanced and, considering the author and moving force behind it, quite strategic. Designed to not create too much attention, RBH 15 slipped into the national consciousness after it already passed Committee action and well on its way to plenary debate.

With the Senate stating that it would not act on RBH 15 and with time running out, what’s the big deal about RBH 15 and its apparent passage at the House?

Congressional leaders can still call for a joint session to consider the President’s desire to extend martial law in Mindanao. Should that joint session be called and convened, may Congress then convert itself into a constituent assembly and pass RBH 15?

Stranger things have happened as, for instance, the change in the speakership of the House after a joint session was convened to hear the President’s State of the Nation Address. It does not look like RBH 15 is dead in the water. – Rappler.com

(This piece first appeared in The Globe and Mail.)

As a former journalist, I often find myself straining to explain press freedom in the Philippines. Many people I meet seem to have a rather straightforward view: Either the press is free or it is not. I wish it were that simple, I tell them. 

The Philippines, officially, does not have prior restraint regulations that prevent journalists from publishing. Pretty much anything goes, which is why the Philippine press has been classified as free, rambunctious even. Filipino journalists struggled quite a lot, particularly during the Ferdinand Marcos dictatorship, when many paid with their lives to make sure the press stayed that way.

So Filipino journalists are free to say even the darndest things. The problem is what happens after: Over the years, many have faced criminal libel suits or have been murdered. The Philippines has often led the world in the most journalists killed in a particular year.

In this way, Maria Ressa, the founder and executive editor of the spunky website Rappler, can count herself lucky – but not that lucky. On Decemver 3, Ms Ressa posted bail of about $1,500 after a court issued a warrant for her arrest. The charge? Rappler Holdings Corporation, the company that owns Rappler, failed to supply authorities with the correct tax information. It is just one of 5 cases that Rappler is facing in two courts in Manila.

The charges against Rappler are clearly meant to intimidate and threaten the website and, ultimately, to shut it down. This is because of its reporting on President Rodrigo Duterte’s so-called “drug war,” which has killed more than 12,000 mostly poor Filipinos. The Philippine Department of Justice began building up a case against the publication as early as December, 2016, after it became clear the website was going to be a very critical voice against the government.

While other Philippine media outlets have reported critically on the Duterte administration, none, in my view, has done it quite like Rappler. Its coverage of the “drug war” has been exemplary and consistent, providing a counternarrative to the often-unchallenged claims of the Duterte administration. 

This excellence in reporting comes from the many highly regarded and award-winning journalists employed by Rappler – the majority of them women. Ms Ressa herself won the New York-based Committee to Protect Journalists’ annual award in November, among other honors.

Rappler is doing its job – and that’s why it has become a favorite target of the Duterte government. The court cases are only the beginning. Rappler journalists face online abuse on a daily basis. When covering the presidency beat, journalists are harassed, with Mr Duterte himself leading the charge. The President even barred journalist Pia Ranada from entering the presidential Palace at one point. 

What’s being done to Rappler reflects the Duterte administration’s wider confrontational attitude toward the media. Through social media, the President’s office has unleashed its attack dogs on news organizations and journalists who report critically on the “drug war.”

Prior to Rappler, Mr Duterte personally threatened the Philippine Daily Inquirer, the country’s most prestigious newspaper, with a tax case and flirted with the idea of denying the congressional franchise of ABS-CBN, the country’s largest media network, which has likewise reported critically on the “drug war.”

More widely, this antipathy toward the media is consistent with an attempt by an increasingly authoritarian President to dismantle institutions that can check his abuse of power. It began with the jailing on trumped-up drug charges of Senator Leila de Lima, the most vocal and consistent critic of the “drug war” and of human rights violations linked to Mr Duterte when he was mayor of Davao City in the south. Mr Duterte and his allies have also sought to muffle critical voices in other branches of government, such as the judiciary, including by forcing out a chief justice. Civil society, including the Catholic Church, is also under siege. 

Court cases against Filipino journalists are not new. Libel remains a criminal offense in the Philippines. A number of reporters have spent time in prison merely for publishing. But coupled with the physical, violent attacks against Filipino journalists, legal cases such as those Rappler faces are a new weapon against press freedom in the Philippines.

It is critical for Canada and other long-time friends of the Philippines to call for the charges against Ms Ressa and Rappler to be dropped. In the meantime, Filipino journalists will confront this heightened threat with the same determination and courage they showed when they fought the Marcos dictatorship. And it starts with this: #StandWithRappler. – Rappler.com

Carlos Conde, former correspondent for The New York Times in Manila, is the Philippines researcher for Human Rights Watch.

As always, the devil is in the details.

Amid high inflation (6% as of November), many people expect the pending Rice Tariffication Bill to be a source of quick relief.

Some government economists estimated that the law, once passed, might slash the price of rice by as much as P7 per kilo, thus tempering runaway inflation.

By allowing freer importation of rice, economists also expect the law to allow Filipinos to enjoy somewhat the ridiculously low rice prices in countries like Thailand in Viet Nam (see Figure 1).

Whereas rice in the Philippines costs more than P40 per kilo (on average), it costs less than P20 per kilo in Thailand and Viet Nam.

Figure 1.

The Rice Tariffication Bill has gone through both houses of Congress now, and is nearly up for signature by President Duterte.

But in this article I discuss why the current form of the law leaves much to be desired, despite the much-needed rice reforms it brings.

Overdue

The truth is we’ve been putting off rice tariffication for decades.

For the longest time, importing rice in the Philippines has been controlled by one government agency: the National Food Authority (NFA), and its predecessor the National Grains Authority (created by ex-president Ferdinand Marcos in 1972).

This import monopoly allows the NFA to bring rice into the country based on its projections of rice demand and supply nationwide. However, over the years, miscalculations have often led to over- or under-importation (thus, rice surpluses and shortages).

Since the country joined the World Trade Organization (WTO) in 1995, we’ve committed to put an end to these import quotas and “tariffy” them instead – that is, convert them into their equivalent tariffs or import taxes.

When we say “equivalent,” we mean we apply tariff rates that bridge the difference between local and world rice prices.

But this international commitment to liberalize the rice sector posed a threat to Filipino farmers.

The Philippine government has since postponed its compliance with the WTO several times. In 1994 we asked for an extension until 2005, then another until 2012, and yet another until 2017.

Sure, these extensions were permitted by the WTO, but only on condition that the government will allow the private sector to import rice within a certain quota, slapped with a tariff rate.

From 59,730 metric tons in 1995 (with a 50% tariff), this quota is now up to 805,000 metric tons in 2018 (with a 35% tariff).

Finally, in 2016, the economic managers prevailed upon President Duterte to finally abolish these rice import quotas. (READ: Rice in the time of Duterte: Will more imports be good?)

Caveats

Now, with the Rice Tariffication Bill, we’re closer than ever to putting an end to these interminable deadline extensions.

However, there are caveats.

First and foremost, this bill sets a 35% tariff rate on all rice imports from ASEAN countries, and a 50% tariff on all imports from non-ASEAN countries.

But some experts say these tariff rates are still too high, and lower rates (say, to the tune of 10% to 20%) might be more in keeping with the overarching goal of making rice more affordable for Filipinos.

Second, apart from paying these tariff rates, the bill requires that all private players secure “sanitary and phytosanitary import clearances” from the Bureau of Plant Industry (BPI) before they can import.

This is to ensure that the rice they’ll import will not be infested by pathogens or pests like bukbok (weevils).

Although this sounds reasonable enough, past experience tells us that this could be prone to abuse – as rightly pointed out by Dr Ramon Clarete of the UP School of Economics.

Remember the abnormal increase of garlic prices in 2014? Investigations found that it was borne by colluding BPI officials who issued sanitary and phytosanitary permits to select garlic cartels.

The whole point of rice tariffication is to abolish the licensing system that prevailed in the past. But this provision in the Rice Tariffication Law creates what is effectively another import license – albeit in the guise of health permits. Does the Rice Tariffication Bill have enough safeguards against their abuse?

Third, the Rice Tariffication Bill also introduces a Rice Competitiveness Enhancement Fund (Rice Fund) that earmarks P10 billion annually for 6 years, sourced from the rice tariff revenues.

This Rice Fund is supposed to shield Filipino rice farmers from the influx of competition from abroad, and bolster their competitiveness by furnishing them with more farm equipment, enhanced skills, and better seed varieties.

But again, we have to be wary of what happened in the past: similar funds had miserably failed to improve the plight of our farmers. Some were even outright corrupted.

Remember the heinous Fertilizer Fund Scam, where P728 million worth of Department of Agriculture funds meant to buy fertilizers for farmers were just funneled to the 2004 presidential campaign of ex-president Gloria Macapagal Arroyo?

Dr Emil Q. Javier of the National Academy of Science and Technology has also warned that the free distribution of inputs the Rice Fund entails (including machinery or seeds) is “well-meaning but misdirected.”

For him, the Rice Fund will be put to better use if it were focused instead on improving rice farmers’ access to credit and crop insurance.

The Rice Fund also does not address deeper problems in the agricultural sector, such as the failure of the country’s land reform program and the inability of small farmers to consolidate their landholdings and exploit the cost savings borne by “economies of scale.”

All in all, absent sufficient safeguards, the Rice Fund might only serve as another costly leaky bucket that politicians can exploit.

Let’s manage our expectations

The path to hell is paved with good intentions, and the Rice Tariffication Bill is no exception.

To be sure, its heart is in the right place. Not only does it promise to lower rice prices, abate inflation, and fulfill our decades-old commitment to tariffy rice quotas, it also allocates funds for the betterment of our rice farmers.

Yet with import license permits that could be abused and a juicy P10-billion pot of money that could be mismanaged, the jury is still out whether the Rice Tariffication Bill will really live up to its promise.

Let’s manage our expectations accordingly. – 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).

I learned from Solita Collas-Monsod’s column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer on Saturday that she had incurred some crossness for her column the week before – “Why Filipinos distrust China.” 

That’s laughable. 

For one thing, few opinion makers in the newspapers and on television can compare with Monsod for rigor of inquiry. Already a highly regarded academic before her enlistment in the media, she can’t help, I’d imagine, bringing down the pressure of her company on her fellows, especially those who like to shoot from the hip.

For another thing, the point on which issue has been taken with her – whether Filipinos don’t trust China – has ceased to be a matter for debate. Numerous surveys have validated it, as Monsod has pointed out. In fact, the distrust is palpable – and does China deserve it!

Still, it should be no surprise that any criticism of China provokes some denier or detractor – in Monsod’s case, it was a Caroline Hau, of the Center for Southeast Asian Studies in Kyoto University. Zealotry is a virtue promoted and cultivated by the Chinese autocracy.

Anyway, I’m here weighing in for Monsod not really with Hau or any similar lost causes in mind, but, rather, in hopes of reaching whoever may be sensible, open-minded, and sensitive enough to be interested to know why China, to which President Duterte happens to look to as a patron and protector, cannot be trusted.

If an event were to be designated in contemporary history as the one that raised the first red flag on China, that would be the 1989 massacre by its state troops of more than a thousand young democracy campaigners in Tiananmen Square. But, for closer relevance and wider familiarity to us, I have decided to limit my references to the more recent past.

Admittedly, there’s no fair comparison to be drawn between the unconscionably murderous shortcuts China's communist regime takes internally – it did not hesitate to use tanks in Tiananmen – and the more surreptitious and calculating methods by which it has conducted its external affairs. But, now the world's second biggest economy and a major power all around, China no longer hesitates to bully and cheat its way around client nations.

The use of fake or downright harmful ingredients in some of its products – lead in children’s toys, Melamine (a chemical for plastics) in infant formula, and plastic itself masquerading as rice grains – is definitely no small infraction. Being willful, it constitutes a worse case than criminal negligence, and, given China’s immense market, the potential victims are innumerable. 

Furthermore, since not all Made-in-China products are labeled as such, doubtless a conscious, strategic avoidance, the customer is denied a proper first warning.  

As for drugs, even if labeled, trust that Duterte, while appearing war-freakish about them, will find others to blame – users, dealers, port watchers – if they come from China. 

If we haven’t yet become too drugged to sense the fatality of China’s embrace, listen to this cautionary tale. It features Kenya and Sri Lanka, easy prey to China being – like ourselves in prospect – debtors misled by their deluded or self-interested regimes. A bridge built in Kenya by Chinese engineers and funded with a Chinese loan collapsed even before it could be opened to traffic. Sri Lanka, for its part, had to “cough up” (the phrase is The New York Times’) an entire port. “The case,” says the Times, “is one of the most vivid examples of China’s ambitious use of loans and aid to gain influence around the world – and of its willingness to play hardball to collect.”

Still, Duterte doesn’t care. He even entertains Chinese companies blacklisted by the World Bank. Indeed, toward China, he is incredibly lavish with the benefit of the doubt. But, again, is anyone surprised?

One of Duterte’s first presidential acts was to surrender  our western seas to China, along with their rich resources in fish and other marine life, corals, and potential minerals. That act of treason was committed soon after our rights to those seas had been affirmed by an international arbitral court. 

China itself was a rival claimant to those waters and a party to the agreement providing for the arbitral proceedings, but it refused to participate in them. Plainly understandable: we had everything to show to back our claim; China had nothing. 

But, of course, it has Duterte. 

The tragic irony is that, as further evidence is turned up proving China’s claim fraudulent, evidence no longer necessary since we’ve got our sovereign rights, we haven’t got possession. 

Now, we can’t even be left alone to our perfectly righteous feeling of distrust toward China. – Rappler.com

The Sandiganbayan never said so.

In its decision handed down on Friday, December 7, the First Division, quite artfully, wrote in its dispositive portion:

WHEREFORE, in light of all the foregoing, judgment is hereby rendered finding Richard A. Cambe, and Janet Lim Napoles GUILTY beyond reasonable doubt of the crime of Plunder, defined and penalized under Section 2 of Republic Act No. 7080, and are hereby sentenced to suffer the penalty of reclusion perpetua, with perpetual absolute disqualification to hold any public office. 

For failure of the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt that accused Ramon “Bong” Revilla, Jr. received, directly or indirectly (sic) the rebates, commission (sic), and kickbacks from his PDAF, the Court cannot hold him liable for the crime of plunder. Accordingly, he is ACQUITTED. (Additional emphasis added)

Moreover, in view of the discussion above, and pursuant to Article 100 of the Revised Penal Code, accused are held solidarily and jointly liable to return to the National Treasury the amount of One Hundred Twenty-Four Million, Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P124,500,000.00).

Let’s take a Deep Dive into two parts of the Decision – the language of the acquittal of Revilla and the imposition of civil liability against all accused.

Not liable but not innocent

Under Rule 120, section 2 of the Rules of Court, if the judgment is acquittal, “it shall state whether the evidence of the prosecution absolutely failed to prove the guilt of the accused or merely failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. In either case, the judgment shall determine if the act or omission from which the civil liability might arise did not exist.” 

In acquitting Revilla, the court simply cited the “failure of the prosecution to establish beyond reasonable doubt” his guilt for plunder. It did not use the words “absolutely failed”; nor did it state in the judgment nor the body that the act from which the civil liability might arise did not exist. To the contrary, the court found the “accused…solidarily and jointly liable to return to the national treasury” the amount of P124,500,000.00.

Why is this significant? In Manantan v. Court of Appeals, G.R. No. 107125, January 29, 2001, the Supreme Court explained the two kinds of acquittal recognized in our jurisdiction, including the different effects thereof on the civil liability of the accused, thus:

Our law recognizes two kinds of acquittal, with different effects on the civil liability of the accused. First is an acquittal on the ground that the accused is not the author of the act or omission complained of. This instance closes the door to civil liability, since a person who has been found to be not the perpetrator of any act or omission cannot and can never be held liable for such act or omission.

There being no delict, civil liability ex delicto is out of the question, and the civil action, if any, which may be instituted must be based on grounds other than the delict complained of. This is the situation contemplated in Rule 111 of the Rules of Court.

The second instance is an acquittal based on reasonable doubt on the guilt of the accused. In this case, even if the guilt of the accused has not been satisfactorily established, he is not exempt from civil liability which may be proved by preponderance of evidence only. (emphasis supplied)

And in Dayap v. Sendiong, G.R. No. 177960, January 29, 2009, the Court enumerated the instances where the acquittal of an accused in a criminal case does not ipso facto result in his or her release from civil liability to the other party: 

The acquittal of the accused does not automatically preclude a judgment against him on the civil aspect of the case. The extinction of the penal action does not carry with it the extinction of the civil liability where: (a) the acquittal is based on reasonable doubt as only preponderance of evidence is required; (b) the court declares that the liability of the accused is only civil; and (c) the civil liability of the accused does not arise from or is not based upon the crime of which the accused is acquitted. However, the civil action based on delict may be deemed extinguished if there is a finding on the final judgment in the criminal action that the act or omission from which the civil liability may arise did not exist or where the accused did not commit the acts or omission imputed to him. (emphasis supplied)

The language of Revilla’s acquittal thus bears directly on the civil liability that has been assessed against the accused. Because the court did not find him innocent, as it did not say that the prosecution absolutely failed to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, there clearly was basis for the court to award civil liability, which would require a lower quantum of evidence (only a preponderance of the evidence).

Is there a significance to the court’s use of the collective term “accused” without naming any one of them?

Yes. In the first paragraph of the dispositive portion, the accused are named, i.e., “Richard A. Cambe, and Janet Lim Napoles.” In the second, the court characterized Revilla still as “accused” even as it acquitted him. Thus, when the court wanted to refer to any of the specific accused, it named them. In the third paragraph, the court used the collective “accused” without naming them. Clearly, the collective “accused” is intended to refer to the accused in the first paragraph, Cambe and Napoles, and the accused in the second paragraph, Revilla.

Had the court wanted to exclude Revilla from civil liability, it would have been quite simple to simply name Cambe and Napoles, as it did in the first paragraph; that it did not, creates a presumption that it meant to include all the accused. 

What are the remedies available?

For Cambe and Napoles, both of whom were convicted and sentenced to reclusion perpetua – a prison term of 20 years and one day to 40 years that is not to be confused with life imprisonment, which has no definite duration other than that fixed by the statute providing for it – their remedy is to appeal the judgment of conviction.

Under Rule XI, Section 1, 2018 Sandiganbayan Internal Rules, the appeal to the Supreme Court in criminal cases decided by the Sandiganbayan in the exercise of its original jurisdiction shall be by notice of appeal filed with the Sandiganbayan and by serving a copy thereof upon the adverse party.

For the prosecution, the People cannot appeal from the acquittal of Revilla as it would violate the guarantee against double jeopardy under the 1987 Constitution. The only remedy left to the prosecution, should it disagree with the acquittal, is to file a special civil action for certiorari alleging that the Sandiganbayan acted with grave abuse of discretion amounting to lack or excess of its jurisdiction in acquitting Revilla. This has only been successfully done only on one occasion and under a very specific context.

In Galman v. Sandiganbayan, G.R. No. 72670, September 12, 1986, the Supreme Court allowed a second motion for reconsideration in a previously denied petition for certiorari challenging the acquittal of the accused in the assassination of former senator Benigno S. Aquino Jr.

The specific context was the information received after the departure of Ferdinand Marcos and family in the wake of the EDSA People Power revolt that Marcos had ordered the Sandiganbayan justices to acquit the accused, thus resulting in the original trial being a sham.

The Court ruled that the machinations to acquit the accused resulted in a deprivation of the State’s right to due process and voided the proceedings, including the judgment of acquittal. The Court expressly ruled that double jeopardy would not bar the re-trial as the guarantee presupposed a valid trial, not a sham proceeding.

As may be seen, challenging the acquittal of Revilla would require a very specific set of allegations and a heavy burden of proof on the part of the People, to be represented by the Solicitor General as counsel of the Republic in proceedings before the Supreme Court. No less than proof that the trial was vitiated by corruption, as in the case of Galman, would suffice to void the judgment. In the absence of any such proof, “grave abuse of discretion” might be a heavy bar to hurdle.

For Revilla, his remedy against the imposition of civil liability would be to ask for reconsideration or clarification. Because the Sandiganbayan did not provide any factual or legal basis for the award, all the accused (Revilla, Cambe, and Napoles) can actually challenge the award as to its basis. Revilla’s counsel has already said as much.

Going back to the original question: Is Revilla innocent?  

With his acquittal, the legal answer is that he cannot be held liable. History, however, has yet to weigh in. – Rappler.com

READ related stories:

• Sandiganbayan acquits Bong Revilla of plunder
• Sandiganbayan orders return of P124.5M in Revilla plunder case
• Ombudsman Martires: We will not appeal Revilla acquittal
• Bong Revilla released: 'May hustisya pa sa ating bansa'
• Majority justices ’took the cudgels’ for Revilla – dissenter
• Cambe, Napoles could not have plundered millions without Revilla – dissenter
• ‘Forged signatures’ theory acquits Revilla in plunder case
• Aquino 'bewildered' by Bong Revilla acquittal
• 'I hope to follow suit,' says Jinggoy Estrada after Revilla acquittal
• Malacañang 'bows down' to Sandiganbayan acquittal of Bong Revilla
• Rundown of the trial: Is Bong Revilla guilty or not guilty?
• DOCUMENT: Dissenting opinions on Bong Revilla acquittal
• DOCUMENT: Sandiganbayan decision that acquits Bong Revilla of plunder
• TIMELINE: Bong Revilla's plunder case and the pork barrel scam
• Sandiganbayan verdict on pork barrel scam: Bong Revilla not guilty | Midday wRap
• Updates on Bong Revilla’s acquittal | Evening wRap

MANILA, Philippines – Sinusukat ng inflation kung gaano kabilis ang pagtaas ng presyo ng mga bilihin.

Bagamat bumaba na sa 6% ang inflation noong Nobyembre (mula 6.7% noong Oktubre), mas mataas pa rin ito sa tinakdang target ng gobyerno ngayong taon na 2% hanggang 4%.

Sinabi na noon ni Pangulong Duterte na walang magagawa ang gobyerno para ibsan ang pagtaas ng presyo ng mga bilihin. Pero totoo nga ba ito?

Sa bagong explainer video na ito, pinapaliwanag ni JC Punongbayan, Rappler columnist, ang iba’t-ibang hakbang na maaaring tahakin ng gobyerno para patuloy na pababain ang inflation. – Rappler.com

Duterte has repeatedly lambasted Catholic priests. He has called them gay, useless, and corrupt. The message is clear. For President Duterte, the Catholic Church is a hypocritical institution. Thus it has no credibility to call him out for his errors. 

Is this a case of the pot calling the kettle black? 

This, in my view, is an important question that needs to be confronted. Duterte has gone largely unscathed by his tirades against the clergy. In a religious society like the Philippines, one might expect that priests have an untouchable place. 

But Duterte has kept attacking them. To do so has been useful for the president to maintain his popularity. The president remains popular not only because of his gutter language. Cursing, after all, can only go so far in evoking authenticity. 

What matters is the message itself.

Why does it work?

Every time he attacks priests for their hypocrisy, Duterte echoes the sentiments of many. 

For one, surveys show that the overwhelming majority of Filipinos are satisfied with the war on drugs, exactly what priests have been criticizing. The war on drugs convinces many that communities are now safer. Forget the fact that people also know that innocent lives may have been sacrificed. What is important is that they feel that neighborhoods that used to be crime-infested are now free from drug users.

Thus whenever priests attack the war on drugs, the public can easily accuse them of not appreciating the “greater good” that it has done for the majority. A recent survey by Pulse Asia shows that for the public, the war on drugs is the administration’s most important achievement. 

This is why invoking human rights on the part of activists and the Church does not work. Between human rights and safety, Filipinos in a climate of fear will definitely choose the latter. This leads me to the second point.

The way Duterte attacks bishops and priests for their hypocrisy resonates with people’s desire for action. Duterte accuses priests of not doing anything apart from criticizing him. Recently he got fired up to even assert that bishops should be killed instead.

To accuse priests of not doing anything makes sense for many Filipinos. We often ask each other if we have done something to help improve the situation. We better shut up if we have not. 

Duterte, by contrast, is a man of action. There is a reason Duterte is called tatay. He is the loving father who will do whatever it takes to defend his children. Duterte himself has said this many times. Speaking before boy scouts in Malacañang, Duterte declared “talagang pumapatay ako ng tao, 'pag ginalaw ninyo ang mga anak namin.”

Admitting mistakes

Last week I spoke at the Augustinian Vocations International Conference in Cebu. I was in the company of priests, nuns, and lay from different Augustinian communities and schools. One of the speakers presented survey findings about what people think of priests. Among the top answers is that priests are “mukhang pera.”

While nobody in the audience was prepared to hear this, nobody was surprised either. In spite of what they do especially in the poorest communities, priests, nuns, and their co-workers always have to work against public perceptions about many things. 

They not only have to deal with allegations that they are corrupt. They also have to to confront issues about sexual abuse and other hypocrisies. These are serious matters that Duterte and his allies could easily harp on to discredit the work of the Catholic Church.

But to simpy deny these issues, as many well-intentioned religious people have done, may not necessarily be the best way forward. 

If Church leaders were willing to criticize the president for his mistakes, they also need to admit their own when confronted – in public if need be. This was what Fr Tony Banks, Assistant General of the Order of Saint Augustine, told me when we had lunch at the conference. 

Public role

To admit its mistakes is crucial for the future of the Catholic Church in the Philippines. Inasmuch as Duterte needs to be held accountable for his atrocities, Church leaders have no choice but to be transparent about how they confront their own corruption. 

The Philippine Trust Index shows that while the Catholic Church is the most trusted institution among Filipinos, trust is generally declining. This is a warning sign because public trust rests on institutional credibility. 

To do so of course is not to lose sight of that which still makes the Catholic Church a socially relevant institution. 

In many communities around the country, Catholic groups are doing what they can do to help the victims of the war on drugs. They are providing psychosocial interventions, legal support, and even scholarship grants for left-behind children. 

For the Catholic Church, reversing public opinion for the war on drugs is an ordeal in itself. Converting Duterte may not be possible at all. 

And so this crisis situation – if that’s what it may be called – continuously demands institutional introspection.  

What does it mean to be a discredited religious institution in a society that cries out for justice? – Rappler.com

Jayeel Cornelio, PhD is a sociologist of religion at the Ateneo de Manila University. He is the author of the book Being Catholic in the Contemporary Philippines: Young People Reinterpreting Religon (Routledge 2016). Follow him on Twitter @jayeel_cornelio.

MANILA, Philippines – Sinusukat ng inflation kung gaano kabilis ang pagtaas ng presyo ng mga bilihin.

Bagamat bumaba na sa 6% ang inflation noong Nobyembre (mula 6.7% noong Oktubre), mas mataas pa rin ito sa tinakdang target ng gobyerno ngayong taon na 2% hanggang 4%.

Sinabi na noon ni Pangulong Duterte na walang magagawa ang gobyerno para ibsan ang pagtaas ng presyo ng mga bilihin. Pero totoo nga ba ito?

Sa bagong explainer video na ito, pinapaliwanag ni JC Punongbayan, Rappler columnist, ang iba’t-ibang hakbang na maaaring tahakin ng gobyerno para patuloy na pababain ang inflation. – Rappler.com

(Former foreign secretary Albert del Rosario delivered the following remarks at the ADR Institute on December 7, 2018.)

As we contemplate what is happening around us, we find ourselves being bombarded every day with news and images of a world seemingly out of control. There seems to be across the board disruptions in so many fields at the same time.  Long stable countries have disintegrated internally. Old alliances are being called into question. A large-scale trade war is unfolding between major economic powers. 

These trends raise both troubling and obscure questions.  Are we on the verge of another nuclear arms race cycle? How will we fare in the struggle for global economic dominance among some of our closest foreign trade and investment partners? What must we do to manage the inevitable onslaught of the results of the new wave of artificial intelligence captured in the Fourth Industrial Revolution? Is it possible to have better global migration governance with hundreds of millions of our people on the move, involving millions of our own OFWs?  

It is easy to be overwhelmed. One of the distinctive features of our present times is growing uncertainty. It would not be too much of an exaggeration to say that we are at the dawn of an Age of Uncertainty. The comfortable policy certainties of the past have evaporated. We can no longer rely exclusively on historical lessons. 

Our Ship of State now has to navigate uncharted waters that are broader and more perilous than perhaps at any other time in the past half-century. We must choose our course carefully. We must ensure that our Ship of State is seaworthy. And our seamanship has to be the best we can provide.

With the daunting challenges to our foreign policy,  our prime objective is to assert our rightful place in the community of nations. It starts and must end with the global observance of the rule of law. 

On an independent foreign policy 

To pursue an independent foreign policy should not be a zero sum game. It is not a simple choice between war or peace but about initiating new friendships and strengthening old ones in the spirit of sovereign equality.

It is of utmost importance that we should stand strong in being able to deliver the main pillars of foreign affairs:

First is National Security. The Philippines has to be able to ensure its territorial integrity and independence as a nation-state. Its integrity as a state can and has been threatened externally and internally. Sovereignty is the touchstone of our actions, whether in defense of our maritime territory, or to protect against domestic terrorists, separatists and insurgents. 

Second is enhancing Economic Diplomacy. The Philippines is a developing nation with a growing population in Southeast Asia. Whereas in earlier years, Southeast Asia had been beset by conflict and instability, it is now known as the home of ASEAN, the fastest growing region in the world. 

As a developing nation, the primordial concern for us is to promote inclusive growth, expand decent employment, improve technological capabilities and elevate the general standard of living of the people. This can best be done through improving the country’s competitiveness in the context of a policy of economic openness and regional integration.   

But, in pursuing economic growth, we should not put all our eggs in one basket. We need all the help we can get; and we need all the partners we can find. 

Third is preserving the rights of our overseas Filipino workers. The total number of international migrants in the world is estimated at some 280 million people. The Philippines accounts for only about 10 million of those, but these have been vital for the economic well-being for our country. Hence, there must be continuing emphasis in Philippine foreign policy on protecting the rights and welfare of migrant Filipinos and, by extension, its profound interest in securing bilateral, regional and international migration governance cooperation.

There is yet a fourth, intangible but fundamentally important wellspring of our foreign policy.  And that is the values by which we aspire to live as a nation.  We see ourselves as an emerging democracy with a proud national tradition not only of fighting for freedom, but endeavoring to ensure that such freedom provides a better life for our people.

The liberty and rights we cherish as a free people inform much of our action on the international stage. From these fundamentals we forged our stance of friendship for all who seek to be our friends, of cooperation with like-minded nations, of the renunciation of war as an instrument of national policy, of respect for international law covering many areas including non-aggression, sovereignty, the peaceful resolution of disputes, adherence to the rule of law in international relations, human rights, climate justice, and humane conditions for migration. 

These democratic values moved us to become a Charter Member of the United Nations and a founding member of ASEAN, APEC and other groupings aiming to promote closer understanding, mutual benefits and progress overall through the peaceful avenues of diplomacy, commerce, economic integration, functional cooperation, and peaceful exchanges of all kinds. 

On national security, national development, and overseas Filipinos

These then are the guiding pillars, priorities or focal points of Philippine foreign policy: national security, national development, and overseas Filipinos. Philippine foreign policy, therefore, must continue to navigate through the problems and issues of international relations with these focal points, often interlinked with one another, as the principal guides for action. 

In a world beset by growing uncertainties, our diplomacy must in general support national development while helping to secure stability, security and peace at home, within our immediate region and if at possible, globally as well. Philippine diplomacy has long assisted our security agencies in the major tasks of combating internal insurgency and terrorism. The spread of violent extremism after 9/11 has not stopped. Modern terrorism is transnational as well as increasingly cyber-enabled. 

We must continue to seek counter-terror assistance in the form of capacity-building, training, intelligence sharing and other measures with the United States, our Mutual Defense Treaty (MDT) ally, and other partners nearby and further afield, as well as in regional and multilateral organizations. No country can defeat modern terrorism on its own so cooperation with other states will remain a national security priority. 

In addition, Philippine diplomacy has sought to be instrumental in aiding the country’s military modernization for external defense to protect our maritime territories. However, with our defenses being modest, our country must be more committed to the peaceful resolution of disputes in accordance with the rule of law.

On upholding The Hague ruling

This was why the Philippines chose to go for arbitration in trying to manage the South China Sea dispute. Arbitration is fully consistent with international law, the United Nations Charter and the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. Our legal position was found to be sound and the international arbitration tribunal ruled against Beijing’s so-called Nine-Dash Line, which by claiming virtually the whole South China Sea, was the principal source of this dispute. 

This legal victory for the country is, not only of great significance to the Philippines, but it also defends the applicability and hence stability of UNCLOS. The tribunal outcome has now become an integral part of international law. For countries like the Philippines, international law remains as the great equalizer among states. 

There have been many unlawful acts of aggression committed by China in the South China Sea including illegal reclamation, degrading of marine environment, interference of petroleum activities of Philippine commercial vessels within Philippine EEZ, interference of Filpino fishermen within Philippine EEZ. Militarization of artificial islands, violating agreements on marine safety and directly confronting our President with the threat of war.

Violations should be protested as these are hard-earned gains of the Filipino obtained from the outcome of the tribunal. The Philippines should seek a resolution from the UN General Assembly to ask China to abide by the arbitral ruling. We can pursue multilateral cooperation and support through ASEAN, EAS, ARF while at the same time utilizing bilateral engagements. 

Senior Associate Justice Antonio Carpio will be able to add to this list of options in addressing China’s unilateralism. 

On ASEAN 

Our most critical foreign policy project has been ASEAN and its many mechanisms and other regional bodies especially APEC. The reasons are compelling. Southeast Asia is our home region. It is where we find our closest neighbors. Southeast Asia, moreover, is part of East Asia and the Western Pacific, a part of the world where vital interests of all other major world powers, and our largest economic partners, intersect.

Despite storm clouds gathering on the trade front, and the slowing down of global growth, East Asia and ASEAN still face very good economic prospects.  If only investments can be mobilized and properly channeled to where they are most needed, such as in expanded and refurbished transportation networks, urban renewal and greening the economy. 

On the US-China Cold War

The advent of the Trump Administration and China’s rising power have generated challenges we must face. Fortunately, we seem to have had measured progress on the Korean Peninsula. But there are other problems. 

There continue to be flareups in the South and East China Seas.  And most recently, there is now the possible danger of a renewed nuclear weapons race which may affect the Asia-Pacific. 

It is believed that there is now a cold war between the US and China encompassing not only trade and cyber but also a renewed build-up of military capabilities. 

We have to encourage dialogue and trust-building among the major powers to shield our region from their rivalry. This can be done by providing venues to reinforce our areas of common interest in stability, security and interchange. It is in this context that the Philippines needs also to maintain our external security links with the United States, our only mutual defense treaty ally, and with like-minded countries such as Japan and Australia. 

Keeping our defense ties strong is not taking sides. It is a conservative position conducive to stability. It is important for us that a regional security balance be maintained and that we avoid the unexpected. The status quo need not be static, but a dynamic balance is needed to account for everyone’s strategic concerns.

There are other areas where the benefits of regional cooperation are more clearly evident. These include counter-terrorism, anti-money laundering, education to fight against extremist ideologies and other transnational crimes. In addition, we can seek from our partners more access to modern technologies and know-how to confront the negative effects of climate change, address extreme weather, and handle marine ocean pollution, over-fishing and the depletion of maritime resources and to clean up our cities.  

On the United Nations 

These and many other complex issues, however, need global and not just regional management.  It is for this reason that Philippine diplomacy reaches out to the international level, principally the United Nations System. We must do so even in the face of attacks against the multilateralism symbolized in the United Nations.

Attacks against the multilateralism symbolized in the United Nations are not in our favor. The United Nations and other international organizations give developing countries like the Philippines a forum where their views can be heard and where they can combine their numbers to really help shape global outcomes. We need the United Nations so that the strong and powerful might perhaps be persuaded to find their interests together with ours.  At the present time, when the world order seems to be fracturing, we should reform the United Nations, not wreck it. 

At any rate, the three pillars of our foreign policy – national security, economic development, protection of Filipinos overseas – are covered at different angles in our multilateral agenda centered on the UN system.  National security, broadly speaking, is covered by the UN’s efforts in nuclear disarmament, other arms control, counter-terrorism, counter-illegal narcotics and prevention of other transnational crimes.

Socio-economic development must remain to be a major focus of the Philippines in the international realm.  We are drawing ever closer to the global economy beyond ASEAN. What happens overseas matters increasingly to our country. We cannot act as passive onlookers.  We must maintain a vigorous presence in all the rule and norm setting international bodies including WTO, UNCTAD, and WIPO.

In addition, the Philippines must continue its involvement in the United Nations system both in established and new areas for cooperation, such as closing the digital divide and managing the so-called Fourth Industrial Revolution. The purpose of this is to keep abreast of developments, to have a say in the global governance of these issues and to tap fresh sources of knowledge, expertise, capacity building, and assistance from the UN’s technical agencies.

On the need for governments to listen to their people 

Before ending, allow me to revisit the subject of the South China Sea.  I would like to share with you some very interesting findings published by my good friend Mahar Mangahas in his column over the weekend. His article reported the findings of a survey held early this November by the University of Hong Kong’s Public Opinion Program (HKUPOP) led by Dr Robert Chung, a globally respected pollster. There were 1,000 respondents in the study.

To quote the main heading of the report, “Most Hong Kong people hope to see different governments follow the opinion of the people in settling the South China Sea disputes.”

The survey found that, of those who are aware of the issue, 58% of them considered it important for a government to follow its people’s opinion in settling the South China Sea disputes. 

Considering the limited freedom of Chinese citizens, I was not expecting encouraging figures which Mahar aptly interprets, “These items support the theme that public opinion in countries directly concerned, and in the world as a whole, has a role in settling cross-country disputes.”

This means that even Chinese citizens believe their government should listen to public opinion.

In closing 

For us Filipinos, this punctuates a growing clamor for government to listen. Accordingly, there was a recent SWS survey that nearly 9 out 10 Filipinos are asking for government to assert the tribunal outcome.

The voice of the Filipino people is becoming stronger and clearer.  

The government needs to listen to our people.

China needs to hear from our people.

The community of nations needs to hear the Filipino speaking with one voice.

At day’s end, we need to adhere to the rule of law and stand for what is right. 

In closing, amid most difficult challenges facing the new Secretary of Foreign Affairs, we respectfully proffer to him our highest level of confidence that his leadership will result in the significant advancement of our national interest among the nations of the world. – Rappler.com

(Editor's note: The author is former secretary of foreign affairs under the Aquino administration and served as ambassador to the US under the Arroyo government.)

In November, pollster Social Weather Stations (SWS) released its 2018 3rd Quarter Social Survey. Among its findings is increased opposition to government inaction on China's intrusion, the sentiment of 84% of Filipinos.

The surey results also showed that 87% of Filipinos believe it's important for the Philippines to regais control of the islands occupied by China in the South China Sea, and that the US is the most trusted foreign country of Filipinos.

Other than the US, previous iterations of the survey showed that Japan consistently got “very good” trust ratings from Philippine respondents. While the US’ high ranking could be easily explained, Japan as one of Filipinos' trusted countries is quite remarkable.

Cool Japan: soft and hard power

In 2004, international relations scholar Joseph Nye coined the term soft power, which is “the ability to influence the behavior of others to get the outcomes one wants.” Around the same time that soft power explained how the US maintained its hegemony without using its more coercive (military) hard power, Japan suddenly found itself in the limelight of international affairs.

In a 2002 article, journalist Douglass McGray introduced the world to “Japan’s Gross National Cool,” explaining that despite its geo-political and economic misfortunes, Japan’s global cultural influence has grown immensely. It has become a cultural superpower: Cool Japan was born.

In 1994, Japan had a trust rating of -2. This was when war memories were regularly recalled in Philippine history classes and Japan was seen as a migrant destination for entertainers where sensationalized stories abound, such as the controversial death of Maricris Sioson.

By 2000, Japan already enjoyed a rating of +29. Just as the Japan Foundation began to promote Japanese studies, language, and traditional arts, the early 2000s saw the Anime boom. This led to the growth of cosplay, the sudden increase of Japanese language learners, and the rapid growth of Japanese studies programs at the Ateneo de Manila University, De La Salle University, and the University of the Philippines.

Today, we have taken for granted our fascination with Japan, with Filipino tourists’ social media showing selfies under the cherry blossoms, shopping in Akihabara, or visiting the temples of Kyoto.

Japan also promoted the other aspects of its soft power. The MEXT scholarship has produced thousands of Japan-educated scholars and scientists since the 1960s. Japan is consistently one of the highest contributors of Official Development Assistance (ODA) to the Philippines, giving 42% of the total ODA received in 2017, while also being one of the country's top sources of foreign direct investments (FDI).

Since 2006, Japan has been one of the most trusted partners of peace-building in Mindanao. Stakeholders view Japan as an acceptable third party in peace negotiations. Furthermore, Japan is funding major infrastructure projects under President Duterte’s Build-Build-Build program: the PNR South Commuter Line (Tutuban-Los Banos), the Malolos-Clark Rail, the Marawi Rehabilitation program, and the much-awaited Japan International Cooperation Agency (JICA)-funded Mega Manila Subway.

Other than soft power, Japan is central to President Duterte’s equi-balancing strategy. Even as his rhetoric distances the Philippines from the US and attempts to have closer relations with China, Professor Renato de Castro, Philippine international relations expert, describes Duterte as concurrently fostering closer security partnerships with Japan in order to equi-balance with an emergent China.

This is evidenced by Japan’s commitment to transfer maritime reconnaissance planes to the Philippine Navy, the use of Japanese ODA to buy patrol vessels for the Philippine Coast Guard, and joint naval exercises in mid-2015, to name a few.

Reasons for Japan’s untrustworthiness

It is then surprising that the latest survey showed a sudden drop in Japan’s trust rating, falling from an all-time high of +54 last year to the current low of +28. What accounts for this?

First, this is about Soft Power rivalries. It seems logical that as another country’s rating increases, Japan’s rating would decrease. However, soft power is rarely a zero-sum game, where a country’s gain is another country’s loss.

Indeed, the US and Japan’s trust ratings have consistently increased side by side through the years. What about South Korea? While it is seen as a cultural and business rival because of Hallyu soft power that brought massively popular K-pop, K-dramas, electronics, and cuisine to the Philippines, South Korea is not seen as a foreign policy rival. In fact, in spite of historical tensions, Japan and South Korea are staunch allies with the US, aiming to maintain the balance of power against China.

If there is a rival to Japan’s soft power, it is China. As “Charm Rivals,” they have been competing to bring Southeast Asia into their political influence. Other than the promise of infrastructure projects under the Belt and Road Initiative (BRI) and financial lending through its Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank (AIIB), China has expanded its cultural and educational campaigns. Since 2007, it has opened 3 Confucius Institutes and increased the number of secondary schools offering Chinese language classes across the Philippines.

However, Chinese trust ratings have been consistently in the negative since the survey started, with the 2018 survey showing a trust rating of -16. Soft power rivalry, while plausible, does not explain everything. A second explanation is about public relations campaigns.

Perhaps Japan hasn’t promoted its initiatives as much as it should? I would argue that public relation campaigns or lack thereof, could explain the rate by which trust ratings increase but does not offer a real explanation why trust ratings decrease. What then is the most plausible explanation?

Politics of historical remembrance

Although arguably the most devastated country in Southeast Asia after the war, the Philippines was one of the first to reconcile with Japan in a meaningful way.

In 1953, President Quirino publicly forgave and pardoned 52 convicted war criminals. In 1974, while Prime Minister Tanaka experienced massive protests during his state visits to Indonesia and Thailand, the Philippines welcomed him with a parade of Japanese flag-waving Filipinos. These events, together with our mutual geo-political and economic interests, seem to suggest that we have accepted Japan’s apologies, received compensation through ODA, and truly forgiven Japan.

However, this narrative of forgiveness was shattered in April 2018, when the recently built Comfort Women statue along Roxas Boulevard was removed, ostensibly to repair the drainage system near the statue. While the statue’s removal might have been removed in order to avoid embarrassing Japan, we should note that having a comfort woman statue does not necessarily mean that the Philippines is politicizing its historical past in order to demand further apologies and compensation.

Rather, memorial sites should be seen as public spaces where people recall their shared past. Indeed, this event seemed to reiterate that we have not fully resolved our wartime past. While the comfort women statue controversy was neither given much coverage in TV and social media, nor did politicians raise it as a political agenda, this event seems a plausible explanation behind the decrease in trust rating.

Fickle nature of soft power

The previous explanations may not completely explain the drop in trust ratings. Indeed, some of Japan’s projects have its critics and some of our bilateral agreements are still contentious. However, we should look at the bigger picture: Japan is still the most trusted Asian country among Filipinos.

If there is one lesson to be learned from such surveys, it is that soft power is only one facet of international affairs. In the 2014-2018 BBC Country Poll, other countries trust Japan, but not in the same level as other middle powers such as the UK, France and Germany. When we talk about soft power, we should return to its original intention: the ability to attract other countries that lead to policy outcomes.

Even as Japanese trust ratings have dropped, if its foreign policy goals in the Philippines coincide with our national interests, then this is not a problem. Soft power is not about popularity for popularity’s sake. Japan exerts its soft power to become a strategic partner that balances against a rising China.

Since soft power is fickle, then there is no need to overreact. Japan should maintain its course: have a good mix of hard and soft power, increase scholarships, strengthen security cooperation, and above all, continue to make its geo-political interests coincide with ours. Perhaps a few more visits by Prime Minister Abe, highlighting Japan’s commitment for lasting peace in Mindanao, and a roadshow of the JICA-financed subway system will be enough to change Filipino perceptions.

We have to remember that, if given the chance, most Metro Manila commuters prefer to ride the LRT 2 rather than the LRT 1 or MRT 3. Why? Because the LRT 2 was built by Japan. Whether this is a fair assessment is debatable, but if you are a commuter, you know what I mean. – Rappler.com     

Benjamin San Jose, PhD is an assistant professor from the Japanese Studies Program and Department of Political Science at the Ateneo de Manila University. He is currently doing research on the changing policy trends of Philippines-Japan migration and Philippines-Japan relations. Comments are welcome at: bsanjose@ateneo.edu

Pines City Colleges (PCC) in Baguio made it to the news a few weeks ago when a school memo requiring female students to undergo a pregnancy test was shared on social media and quickly went viral.

According to the memo, the students would also need to pay P150 for the pregnancy test.

This policy is problematic. At the most basic level, a pregnancy test can be purchased over the counter for as low as P90. On the most incredulous level, there are institutions like PCC that blatantly violate laws prohibiting discrimination based on gender like the Magna Carta of Women and think they are within reason for doing so.

Twyla Rubin of the Gender Ombudsman at the Commission on Human Rights (CHR) and other groups held a dialogue with PCC officials as part of an initial investigation. PCC defended its policy, saying:

• Students agreed to the mandatory pregnancy test.

• No student has ever complained about the policy before.

• The policy was in place even before the Magna Carta of Women was passed.

• PCC did not name any particular school but insisted that there are many other schools who require their female students to undergo a pregnancy test.

PCC further insisted that the policy was initiated to protect the health and well-being of a pregnant woman and her unborn child.

I called PCC and asked to speak to Ms Regina Prats, PCC vice president for administration and one of the signatories of the memo. Her assistant, Caroline, politely but firmly refused to transfer my call to Prats and repeatedly said that I should refer to the PCC statement posted on its Facebook page.

{source}<iframe src="https://www.facebook.com/plugins/post.php?href=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.facebook.com%2Fpccbaguio%2Fphotos%2Fa.284123921673418%2F1867611599991301%2F%3Ftype%3D3&width=500" width="500" height="255" style="border:none;overflow:hidden" scrolling="no" frameborder="0" allowTransparency="true" allow="encrypted-media"></iframe>{/source}

Discrimination of women based on pregnancy

PCC's defense is egregious and flawed. First of all, just because no one complained or because other schools are allegedly doing it, does not give PCC a free pass to implement such a policy. Secondly, the passage of the Magna Carta of Women requires all institutions to ensure that their policies and regulations are consistent with the law. Lastly, PCC cannot claim that the female students freely agreed to undergo a pregnancy exam. It is not free choice when a punitive environment for students who fall pregnant is a matter of school policy.

Consider the provisions in the PCC student manual shared by the Likhaan Center for Women's Health:

• Pregnant students must not enroll in Clinical Dentistry or any subject (Roentgenology, Anesthesiology, Endodontics, Hospital Dentistry, and Community Dentistry II and III) that will "endanger mother and child." Female students are "required to undergo pregnancy test to be administered by the institution's medical clinic."

• Any student who gets pregnant must report her condition to the Dean. Those who get pregnant at the start or middle of the semester must drop out of the subjects mentioned and go on leave for a year, or continue with only her general education/cultural subjects.

• A student who intentionally fails to report her pregnancy will be in violation of policies and considered dropped or failed in the mentioned subjects. She must submit a letter of explanation, drop the subjects, and limit herself to cultural subjects if she wishes to continue.

• If the findings of the school physician are contradicted by an outside physician, the school physician prevails. Objections must be done in writing on the same notification day. The student must also agree to subject herself to further medical evaluations by the school, at the student's expense. Further objections will go to the Dean whose decision will be final and executory.

As if that weren't enough humiliation, there is this additional provision:

• In order to enroll, the student and her guardian must also agree that a student who commits abortion shall be dismissed and be subjected to thorough investigation. She must show proof of her claim and be willing to submit herself to medical evaluation. 

How does the school intend to conduct a thorough investigation to prove or disprove that a woman had an abortion?!

A statement released by Likhaan and signed by other women's rights advocates lists 5 reasons why the policy is damaging to young women's mental health and future aspirations. An excerpt from the statement reads:     

The sanctions on women found to be pregnant or had an abortion are not "protective," but harsh and judgmental. Mandatory self-reporting and written explanations of one's pregnancy or denial of abortion are gross violations of privacy and confidentiality and expose women to stigma and judgment. Forced leave, failing grades, and dismissal from college because of their reproductive condition or decision will set back these young women from the pursuit of their chosen careers.

Likhaan further asserted that while students may be exposed to certain elements in the course of their study, there are standard ways of protecting pregnant women from these risks, such as protective gear against radiation.

Challenge of upholding gender equality

Rather than referencing scientific evidence, a medical school like PCC is choosing to exaggerate the risks linked with pregnancy. Despite being an academic institution that should set an example for exemplary law-abiding behavior, PCC insists that it is entitled to its own interpretation of laws.

Laws guarantee our individual rights, but it is everyone's duty to enforce and uphold the law.

We can start by orienting ourselves on laws like the Magna Carta of Women. It does seem tedious but when you know what rights are afforded to you, you will feel less helpless in being made to comply with policies you know are unjust and discriminatory just because "the school said so."

Pregnancy is not a crime for you or me. Neither should it be a crime for PCC students. – Rappler.com

Does your school or organization have policies like a mandatory pregnancy test?

Refer the matter to the CHR Gender Ombudsman and the Commission on Higher Education for colleges and universities or the Department of Education for high schools.

Know your rights.  Read the Magna Carta of Women here.

Ana P. Santos writes about sex and gender issues for Rappler. She is also the 2014 Pulitzer Center on Crisis Reporting Miel Fellow.

Masakit, mahapdi at nakapanlulumo ang hatol ng Sandiganbayan sa kasong plunder ni dating senador Bong Revilla. 

Masakit, mahapdi at nakapanlulumo na nauwi sa acquittal ang mahabang pakikibaka kontra korupsiyon. Ito sana ang rurok ng pork tales na nagsimula 6 na taon nang nakalilipas, noong Disyember 19, 2012 nang ikinulong ni Janet Napoles ang pinsan na si Benhur Luy, at humantong sa pag-aresto sa 3 senador: sina Bong Revilla, Jinggoy Estrada, at Juan Ponce Enrile.

Naging mitsa ang pork barrel scam ng pinakamalawak na anti-corruption protest sa Pilipinas matapos ang EDSA Dos, ang Million People March noong Agosto 2013. Malalim ang hugot ng mga Pinoy sa paglilitis ng pork barrel cases. Buhay na buhay pa rin ang kagustuhan nating maparusahan ang mga magnanakaw.

Tinawag ni Asian Institute of Management Policy Director Ronald Mendoza ang pork na "silent killer" ng demokrasya. Ito ang numero unong kalaban ng good governance.

Napaluha, napahagulgol

“Kung si Cardinal Tagle ay napaluha, ako ay napahagulgol,” ang sabi ni Chairperson ng Commission on Audiot (COA) na is Grace Pulido Tan noong Agosto 2013. Tinutukoy niya ang nahalungkat na pandarambong sa Special Audit ng Priority Development Assistance Fund (PDAF), ang pondo ng mga mambabatas para sa mga proyekto.

Ayon sa special audit, ang pork barrel scam ay:

• Humigop mula sa kaban ng bayan sa loob lamang ng 3 taon ng tumataginting na P6.156 bilyon papunta sa 82 kaduda-dudang NGO
• Isang malawak na network ng korupsiyon sa gobyerno na nagsangkot sa 192 na mambabatas

Taong 2007-2009 lamang ang sakop ng audit, na naganap sa panahon ni Gloria Arroyo. Ilang bilyon pa ang nahigop ng iba pang mga fake NGO sa ibang mga taon?

Ilang bagong Napoles na kaya ang sumulpot? Ilang bagong modus na ang naimbentong pamalit sa nabuking na diskarte ng pork barrel scam?

'Consequential ruin' 

Ayon kay Associate Justice Maria Theresa Dolores Gomez-Estoesta sa kanyang dissenting opinion, “Malalim ang epektong pagkawasak nito sa lipunan, at maaaring mapawalang-sala ang isang taong akusadong nagnakaw sa kaban ng bayan ng daan-daang milyon." (This consequential ruin runs deep, and may eventually free a man once accused of having conspired in raiding the public treasury to hundreds of millions.) 

Ayon sa sumasalungat na kuro-kuro nina Justice Efren de la Cruz at Estoesta:

• Hindi wasto na binigyang halaga ng 3 mahistrado ng Sandiganbayan ang testimonya ng handwritting expert na si Desiderio Pagui na nagpawalang-bisa sa mahabang paper trail ng mga pirma ni Revilla. 
• Hindi kapani-paniwalang walang alam si Revilla sa ginagawa ng kanyang staff na si Richard Cambe, samantalang siya ang nagsertipika sa kanyang tauhan.
• Bakit binigyang halaga ang isang witness na bumaligtad na nagsabing si Luy ang nagpeke ng pirma – sa kabila ng dalawa pang testigong nanindigan na pirmado ni Revilla ang mga liham?
• Bakit hindi pinansin o na-“gloss-over” ang report ng Anti-Money Laundering Council o AMLC na tugma ang halagang pumasok sa bank account ng mga korporasyon ng mga Revilla sa ibinigay ni Luy kay Cambe?

'Pekeng pirma'

Mauuso na raw ang depensang “pineke ang pirma ko.” Ang pagpapasa ng sisi sa assistant o chief of staff – matagal nang uso 'yan.  Mismong si dating senador Jinggoy Estrada ang nagsabing mukhang mapapadali na rin ang kanyang paglaya. 

Ayon sa dating National Scientist at University of the Philippines School of Economics Professor Emeritus Raul Fabella, "Kapag kaiga-igaya ang pandarambong, walang pag-asa ang merkadong maghatid ng pag-unlad. (Where plunder is a virtue, the market has no chance to deliver development.)

Huwag nating kalilimutan na nag-file sina Revilla, Estrada, at Enrile ng certificates of candidacy. Muli silang magbabalik sa poder kung saan umano direktang minaniobra ang malawakang katiwalian.

Tagumpay ng korupsiyon

Pero maliban diyan, isa itong dagok sa pagpapanagot sa mga tiwali at mandarambong. Ano ang mensaheng ipinaaabot ng acquittal sa mga Pilipino? Na tanging mga small-fry lamang ang kayang idiin ng ating sistema ng hustisya?  

Na sa Pilipinas, ang mga suspek ay binabaril, ang mga kritiko binubusalan, sinasampahan ng kaso at ikinukulong? Pero ang mga makapangyarihan, lalo na ang mga kaibigan ng Poong Digong ay nakalulusot at muling namamayagpag?

Kung susuriin ang desisyon ng mayoryang mga mahistrado, hindi nila kailanman sinabing inosente si Revilla. Ang sinabi ay ito: hindi napatunayan na guilty siya beyond reasonable doubt. Kaya nga kasama si Bossing Bong sa pinagbabayad na P124.5 milyon. 

Kaya't tigilan na ang pagmamalinis at pagpunta sa Imus Cathedral. Huwag na sanang idamay ang Diyos.

Ngayong Araw ng Karapatang Pantao, isang malaking kabuktutan na pinalaya natin ang isa sa mga inakusahang hepe ng sindikatong pork barrel.

Tandaan natin ang araw na ito – Disyembre 7, 2018– nagtagumpay ang mga alagad ng korupsiyon.  – Rappler.com

The Paris protests  should serve as an inspiration to us in the Philippines to resist the fuel tax increase and other regressive economic policies of the Duterte administration. The jumble of bad, go-stop-go decisions now make it likely that the government has unleashed an Argentina-type inflation that could make the inflation rate hit 8 to 10 per cent early next year.

Over the last few weeks, France has been in turmoil as demonstrators have burned cars, defaced monuments such as the Arc de Triomphe in Paris, and tied up traffic. Their beef: the decision of the government of Emmanuel Macron to increase taxes on fuel by 10% beginning next year.  

Amazingly, the government has caved in and cancelled the planned increase, worried not only by the violence but also the fact that according to the polls, 7 out of 10 French people supported the so-called “Yellow Vests,” or gilets jaunes, owing to their trademark protest gear.

The deeper reasons

The "yellow vests" may have focused their ire on the fuel tax increase, but analysts say their anger is fueled by deeper feelings of outrage at the insensitive neoliberal policies of Macron. 

Ever since he came into office a year and a half ago, local government subsidies for part-time jobs have been slashed, housing aid for the poor has been reduced, and retirees have seen cuts in their pension checks. On the other hand, Macron has rushed to the aid of the rich, repealing France’s wealth tax, which had applied only to those with over €1.3 million in assets. 

As reporter Cole Stanger notes, “This is why the notion of justice fiscale, or ‘tax justice,’ figures so prominently among Yellow Vest sympathizers: Why should ordinary people, they ask, be forced to fork over another couple hundred euros each month while the super-rich are rewarded simply for being super-rich?”

The "yellow vests" have also called on Macron to resign, which some observers think is not a bad idea since 3-and-a-half more years of him and his policies might deliver France to the hands of the far right National Front headed by Marine Le Pen in the next presidential election in 2022.

What the Gilets Jaunes teach us

The Paris protests should serve as an inspiration to us in the Philippines to resist the foolish anti-people economic policies of the Duterte administration. The centerpiece of the controversial TRAIN law was a move to levy major increase excise taxes on petroleum products over three years to make up for a deep reduction in corporate taxes. 

Willfully ignoring the fact that the tax would have inflationary effects in the Philippines’ oil-intensive economy, where almost all areas of economic activity are fueled by largely imported oil, Duterte’s economic managers managed to sucker the House and the Senate to back the plan.  

Any student of Econ 101 could have told them that the hefty tax increase would serve as a signal to middlemen and retailers in our transport-intensive agriculture to raise prices and to raise them beyond reasonable calculations of profit to ensure that they would, in fact, turn a profit. And that once food prices rose, they would have a cascading effect on all other areas of economic activity. 

Moreover, once unleashed, the inflation genie would be hard to rebottle, and indeed, inflation hit a nine-year high of 6.7% in September and October.

Economic managers vs Piñol

The runaway inflation of the past 5 months has triggered a bitter debate within the Cabinet, with the economic managers led by Finance Secretary Sonny Dominguez blaming Agriculture Secretary Manny Piñol for the food price increases, and Piñol shouting back that their fuel tax increase was the culprit. 

According to one Cabinet secretary, the shouting match became so furious and loud that President Duterte had to place his hands on his ears.  

Piñol appeared to have won the battle in mid-October, when the economic managers agreed to shelve the second round of excise tax increases that would have brought the total tax on diesel from P2.50 to P4.50 and gasoline from P7 to P9 in January 2019.  

However, in a turnaround, apparently triggered by eight weeks of fuel price reductions at the pump, the economic managers went back on their commitment and have now convinced Duterte to implement the second round of excise tax increases next month. This came amid frantic efforts to convince the population that inflation had “cooled” to 6 per cent in November from a nine-year high of 6.7% in September and October.

Why we face runaway inflation

Now things are going to really get interesting. 

Inflation is determined by expectations about the price of goods in the future. There is only one thing that is certain at the moment, and that is that the tax on a liter of diesel will rise to P4.50 next year and that on a liter of gas to P9. There is, however, great uncertainty over the rise in the price of oil, which has been extremely volatile, being dependent on a host of international factors, including the future of the murderous Saudi Crown Prince Muhammad bin Salman, who had the journalist Jamal Khashoggi killed. 

Confronted with this stupefying uncertainty, middlemen and retailers will do what is “rational” (from their point of view) and that is, factor into the price of their goods a steadily increasing margin of profit that would guarantee their making a neat sum if oil prices rise instead of decline, in addition to factoring in the P4.50 diesel excise tax.

Once high inflation begins, as it has over the last few months, it is extraordinarily difficult to rein in, and the decision to go on with the excise tax increase will make it even more difficult. Businesses trying to keep up with inflationary pressures find themselves trapped in an unending cycle, like a dog going round and round trying to bite its tail.

The jumble of bad, go-stop-go decisions now make it likely that the government has unleashed an Argentina-type inflation that could make the inflation rate hit 8 to 10% early next year.

Willful ignorance and secure technocrats

The President, however, is not likely to intervene since he not only does not understand but refuses to understand plain economics. 

Owing to his willful ignorance, his economic managers, in particular, Budget Secretary Ben Diokno, National Economic and Development Authority head Ernesto Pernia, and Finance Secretary Dominguez, not only can decree what they want, subject of course to formal ratification by a compliant Congress, but they enjoy, de facto, the greatest degree of job security among members of the Cabinet, with little countervailing force to their flawed thinking than the increasingly isolated Manny Piñol, who’s not exactly an economic wizard.

As in France, the excise tax increase seeks to put the burden of tax reform on the poor in order to benefit the rich; in this case, the strategic aim of TRAIN is to bring down the corporate income tax rate from 30% to 20%, as the World Bank, International Monetary Fund, and the foreign chambers of commerce have long demanded. TRAIN’s authors boast that under the new law, people earning P250,000 a year or below are exempted from paying income taxes.

This is now a silly boast since these same people are now effectively paying an “inflation tax” that is clawing back from their annual income much more than they would have paid in taxes owing to the fuel tax increase. TRAIN is part of a neoliberal program that continues to promote contractual labor, holds down wages despite inflationary pressures, prevents effective curbs on the mining industry, seeks to get rid of the nationalist provisions in the Constitution, and eliminates all import quotas. The regime has also turned a blind eye to the demands of farmers to undertake serious and comprehensive agrarian reform.

Taxing diesel and gas, it must be pointed out,  is not always bad.It is fine if it is part of a comprehensive plan to move people to alternative energy sources, like solar and wind, to reduce carbon emissions to contain climate change. 

But if the government has not made the necessary investments on an alternative energy infrastructure that will allow our people to switch to more benign energy sources with not too much hardship, excise taxes on fuel simply add to more misery, more poverty, more inequality for the vast majority. As of now, that alternative energy infrastructure is non-existent.

Politicians scramble

Many politicians are trying to ensure their reelection by sponsoring bills to halt the excise tax increase. 

Senators who voted for TRAIN, like all the pro-Duterte majority, are now trying to latch on to the “stop the excise tax increase” wave. Voters should give these people what they deserve: to be voted out of office.

As in France, only popular protest in the streets will be able to stop the government’s stubbornly stupid plan. The question is, are our people willing to go out to the streets and mess things up, like France "yellow vests" did?– Rappler.com

Walden Bello is author of the forthcoming book Paper Dragons: Why Financial Crashes Happen and Why China May be Next (London: Zed, 2019) and a former member of the Philippines’ House of Representatives. Ia Maranon is a member of the research team of the organization Laban ng Masa.

It’s been 4 years since I moved back to the United States (US) from Manila. Since then, I’ve been producing for a daily community show for the Filipino-American demographic which has given me an opportunity to really get to know the organizations that are working to help our kababayan (fellow countrymen) who are trying to cope with employment, immigration, and social issues.

The work was tedious but rewarding. The show has since ended its broadcast, after 40 years of local programming for the Asian-American communities in Los Angeles (LA). However, the work has made a lasting impression and makes me realize the platform it provided the voiceless in our Filipino community.

This is where I got involved with organizations such as Pilipino Workers Center, Filipino Migrant Center, Gabriela Los Angeles, Bayan USA, and Migrante USA, among others.

Every Wednesday, the program “Kababayan Today,” in partnership with the Asian Journal, would report the news from the Philippines so I would closely monitor the continuing political upheaval every week.

Since the May 2016 elections which Rodrigo Duterte won as the country's top leader, I have reported his misogynistic views which he addressed to our nation and have continued not to accept his rhetoric as the norm. (READ: From 'fragrant' Filipinas to shooting vaginas: Duterte's top 6 sexist remarks)

I have been attacked online and in person by certain Digong Duterte Supporters at the Philippine Consulate in LA because of my critique towards the administration, but I continued respectfully dissenting on key issues, which unfortunately have never really been addressed by those that support Duterte. (READ: State-sponsored hate: The rise of the pro-Duterte bloggers)

When I was invited to be part of the Malaya Movement, a national network of Filipino Americans calling for accountability for the worsening human rights crisis in the Philippines, including the alarming extrajudicial killings of mostly urban poor, peasants, and critics of the Philippine government, I became interested to get involved and learn more about the attacks against the Filipino people. (READ: Defending human rights under Duterte)

I was also invited to host the first Malaya Movement Mixer held in May as part of a national “Stop the Killings” speaking tour bringing together a broad network of people including student organizations, labor unions, church leaders, artists, educators, writers, and legislators.

Global court

This past September, a “Pinay Uprising” fundraiser through grassroots efforts was put on in Los Angeles to raise money to send delegates to Brussels, where I got an invitation to represent the Malaya Movement as an attendee to the International People’s Tribunal (IPT) where I collaborated with Filipino-American artists such as Minerva Vier, Arianna Basco, and Ruby Ibarra, among others, who are also concerned on excessive human rights violations under the current administration.

The IPT is a global court convened by international lawyer organizations such as International Association of Democratic Lawyers, European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights, Haldane Society of Socialist Lawyers, IBON International, and the International Coalition for Human Rights in the Philippines as a measure by the people to speak out when their country’s justice system has failed them.

The findings and verdict were presented to the International Criminal Court, United Nations, European Parliament, and the Philippine Consulate. It is an important venue and platform for establishing the truth about what is currently happening in the Philippines to the various international agencies. (READ: Duterte faces new complaint before Int'l Crminal Court)

In the course of two days, I heard a total of 31 testimonies of expert witnesses and victims sharing their personal accounts as well as video depositions of the gross human rights violations that span extrajudicial killings, daughters of political prisoners, tortures, indigenous communities being forced off their lands, church groups and union leaders being attacked.

On the first day, I sat there live tweeting each and every testimony presented but eventually by the end of the first day. It became hard to see through the tears as I listened to all the accounts of various witnesses. I spoke to all the union organizers and human rights activists giving voice to thousands of Filipino peasants, workers, fisherfolk, indigenous people, victims and their families of extrajudicial killings, and the urban poor – all demanding justice for the countless violations of political, cultural, economic and human rights against their persons.

It is the activists, those who have rallied for the likes of Mary Jane Veloso, an overseas Filipino worker (OFW) who is currently sentenced to death by the Indonesian government even after the person who planted drugs on her had already stepped forward or those who march in the streets to honor Jennifer Laude’s memory, the transwoman who was murdered by an American soldier – these are the people whose work should be applauded and not vilified.

When one is labeled a “terrorist” for being a defender of human rights of the Filipino people, then there is no dispute that the Philippines is living under a tyrant  and macho-fascist dictator. 

A sham?

At the end of the two days, a 10-page guilty verdict was given by the panel of jurors to both Duterte and Trump administrations.

The Trump administration was found liable for using tax dollars to fund the joint military exercises and military engagements of the US soldiers in the Philippines.

It is quite baffling that the response to the guilty verdict, given by Harry Roque, the former presidential spokesperson, was to call the IPT a sham proceeding by discrediting the jurors and one of the witnesses because he did not know them? What a way to deflect the verdict of crimes against humanity against the Filipino people by saying because he did not know any of them therefore it was not a valid proceeding. (READ: EXPLAINER: What is the value of Belgium tribunal’s guilty verdict on Duterte?)

Admittedly, I was never one of those commenting on politics as it was never of interest, coming from the entertainment sector. But the older and wiser I’ve gotten, I truly believe that turning a blind eye to the current situation in the Philippines is tantamount to enabling Duterte to eradicate anyone who goes against administration.

History will remember those who spoke up for the voiceless and oppressed.

As an artist and a human being, my resistance in this struggle is to share what I’ve witnessed and to demand accountability from the government.

December 10 is observed as International Human Rights Day. This year, I am commemorating it by lifting up the heartwrenching, yet hopeful stories of our kababayans. 

As a passionate Filipino American, I invite you to join me in the Malaya Movement to rise with our community and use our collective voice to uphold human rights and amplify the call for justice and true democracy in the Philippines. Visit gtongi.com for more info. – Rappler.com

Giselle Töngi-Walters is the professional 'slashie.' Besides being mom to Sakura and Kenobi, she is also an all-around media personality. She is a model/product endorser/radio jock/writer/actor for film, TV, theater and producer for second generation Fil-Am content. 

This morning, a US Air Force plane bearing 3 historic bells from San Lorenzo de Martir Church in Balangiga will land at Villamor Air Force Base. These bells were taken 117 years ago; later today it will be my honor to return them.

Their safe return is thanks to the efforts of US Secretary of Defense James Mattis, supported by President Trump, and is driven by respect for the Philippines, our friend, partner, and ally. 

It has been a long road home for these bells, which were caught up in the aftermath of the tragic conflict that raged across this archipelago at the turn of the last century.

The US Army’s 9th Infantry Regiment, whose C Company was garrisoned at Balangiga returned with one of the bells to its home garrison in Sackets Harbor, New York. This bell followed the Regiment to subsequent assignments, most recently residing at a US Army base in South Korea. The two other bells were sent to Camp D.A. Russell in Cheyenne, Wyoming with the 11th Infantry Regiment, where the bells were displayed as part of a memorial to fallen U.S. service members.

Good hearted individuals and groups labored for decades to bring the bells home. Former presidents, cabinet secretaries, Philippine and US Ambassadors, historians, philanthropists, and many others worked tirelessly to raise awareness of the history of the bells and to advocate for their dignified return. 

Others viewed the bells in a very different light.

In the state of Wyoming, some US military veterans expressed their belief that the two bells housed there were an integral part of a war memorial that should not be deconstructed or disturbed. In the fall 1999, Congress passed legislation that made it unlawful to remove the two bells from the memorial on the base, challenging efforts to lobby for their return. 

Turning point

The turning point in this century-long saga came in October of this past year during the 2017 ASEAN Defense Ministers Meeting in Clark. Secretary Mattis met with Secretary of National Defense Delfin Lorenzana to discuss security cooperation and opportunities to further strengthen the US-Philippine defense relationship. At this meeting, SND Lorenzana raised the issue of the “Balangiga Bells.” Later that day, in a meeting with President Duterte, Secretary Mattis stated definitively that it would be his personal initiative to find a way to return these religious artifacts.

In the Secretary’s words, “all wars end,” and it was time to heal a wound that had strained the US-Philippines relationship for too long.  Following this important meeting, I maintained direct communication with the Secretary and my colleagues and I worked with his outstanding staff to ensure the bells’ swift return.

In Washington, Secretary Mattis sought legislation that would make it legally permissible to return the bells. Members of Congress and senior officials in the Department of State and National Security Council endorsed returning the bells. The American Legion and Veterans of Foreign Wars both passed national resolutions supporting the bells’ return. These unambiguous expressions of support clearly demonstrate the special bond veterans and the US public share with the Philippine people.  

On August 9, Secretary Mattis announced his intent to return the bells, which began a legally-required 90-day waiting period. On November 14, the Secretary traveled to F.E. Warren Air Force Base and, in a solemn ceremony, officially informed Philippine Ambassador to the United States Babe Romualdez that the bells would at last be returned to the Philippines. At the culmination of his moving speech he turned to Ambassador Romualdez and asked him to “Bear these bells home, back to the Catholic Church, confident that America’s ironclad alliance with the Philippines is stronger than ever.”  And so the bells began their journey home. 

This decision to return the bells is consistent with our values and overwhelmingly viewed as the right thing to do. From World War II to today’s struggle to defeat ISIS and the scourge of terrorism, our militaries have fought together, bled together, at times died together. As your ally and friend, we will forever honor and respect this shared history. 

Today we do not focus on looking back or relitigating a painful chapter in our past but investing in our shared future.

In Secretary Mattis’ words, “In returning the Bells of Balangiga to our ally and our friend - the Philippines - we pick up our generation’s responsibility to deepen the respect between our peoples.” Ours is a close friendship, and we do not take it for granted. Strengthening and maintaining it requires sustained commitment and investment. To these bells – the Bells of San Lorenzo De Martir – welcome home. We wish you safe onward travel to Samar and your church in Balangiga.– Rappler.com

Ambassador Kim is the US ambassador to Manila.

The acquittal of ex-senator Revilla and the conviction of his chief of staff, Attorney Cambe, is perplexing. The subordinate is answerable for the crime, but his boss is not. This gives the reasonable impression that Cambe acted on his own. Or more precisely, he acted only with Janette Napoles who is also convicted.  

While Revilla is acquitted, he is ordered to return to the government P124 million. The underlying premise is that Revilla got this money. But of course, where would he have gotten it except from Cambe and Napoles! This presents an intriguing scenario where Revilla just receives the money without himself having participated in the plunder.  

Revilla was charged, imprisoned and tried as a Senator of the land. He was judged not just as Revilla as a person, but Revilla as a mighty and powerful senator. In a real sense, it is the Senate, if not the whole Congress, that underwent trial.  

Plunder came about, because PDAF (Priority Development Assistance Fund) by itself is a gargantuan transaction. Congress installed PDAF in the law which is the annual appropriations act. Our lawmakers took undue advantage of their mighty positions to create a transaction for themselves.

As decided by the Supreme Court, the PDAF is unconstitutional, because it contains a post-enactment power for a lawmaker to intervene in the implementation of projects, which is supposedly the sole function of the executive department.  It is this post-enactment power, or the power after the enactment of the law, that crucially allowed a lawmaker like Senator Revilla to be able to perpetuate the transaction.

This post-enactment power embedded in the PDAF is exercisable only by a lawmaker like Revilla. It is only a Senator or a Congressman who can propose or identify a project and cause it to be funded under his allotted funds in the PDAF.  Not being a Senator, Atty. Cambe has no such power.

As a mere subordinate, Cambe can conspire with Napoles only if Revilla actually uses funds under PDAF to be allotted for certain projects with government agencies. It staggers the mind to think that in such a multi-million transaction, Revilla could have been completely left in the dark, not knowing anything, and then later could just have happily received P124 million or more from Cambe and Napoles. 

Monumental crime

On a deeper level, it is not just Revilla, Cambe or Napoles on trial.  It is the whole Congress that is. For it is a bunch of criminals who used their lawmaking function to put a transaction in the law in such a way that they would be able to actually make money out of it.  The fact that Revilla is to return P124 million is indubitable proof that he actually made money out of the transaction. 

In living memory, PDAF ranks as the monumental crime of corruption  committed by Congress in the history of our country.  Having a financial interest in a transaction is certainly a graft and corrupt practice on their part.  Those lawmakers who actually passed it should be charged and tried for violating the anti-graft law. They should be banned perpetually from holding public office. 

The Sandiganbayan decision is clearly at odds with the earlier decision of unconstitutionality of PDAF by the Supreme Court.  This Supreme Court decision renders it factually impossible for a mere chief of staff like Cambe to commit plunder without Revilla’s knowledge, much less participation.  

It is Congress itself, composed of the Senate to which Revilla belongs and the House of Representatives, that was convicted along with Cambe and Napoles, because this bunch of criminal lawmakers made it possible for Cambe and Napoles to commit plunder under PDAF.  In a true sense, Congress is a principal by direct participation in the plunder committed by Cambe and Napoles.

Even if Revilla is released from jail, the Senate is put to shame as an institution, because the Senate made it possible for Revilla to illegally earn P124 Million from PDAF which he is ordered to return.  The Senate is a direct participant in the PDAF that Revilla exploited as a Senator to illegally make money.  

Like Revilla,  all the senators who also illegally earned from PDAF have, deep in their conscience, the same legal, if not moral, obligation to return what they illegally got.  The same thing applies to congressmen.

Revilla goes down in history as the infamous senator who actually committed plunder but was acquitted. He committed plunder, because he received and is ordered to return P124 Million. 

To this extent, his acquittal is a perversion of justice of the highest order, and deserves nothing but supreme condemnation, it being a grand judicial cover-up of the biggest PDAF-related corruption in Congress. – Rappler.com