30
Apr

Who’s afraid of Joint Resolution 10?

Is the Senate treading on dangerous grounds?

In a surprise move, Senate Minority Floor Leader Aquilino Pimentel Jr. filed Joint Resolution 10 (with 10 senators as co-sponsors) that calls for convening Congress into a Constituent Assembly to revise the Charter. The resolution specifically called for a federal form of government. Surprising because (1) the Senate has always been against the Charter change initiatives (in any form) of the Arroyo regime and (2) most senators are against Charter change.

Now there are fears that this is a Trojan horse, or an opening that this regime can exploit. Are these fears justified?

The danger lies in the fact that anything can happen in the Senate. For one, the head of the Committee on Constitutional Amendments is Richard Gordon, who is consistently pro-Gloria, though his political ambitions might actually stall any Charter change proposal from now till May 2010. Second, as I had pointed out here, anyone can always change his/her mind and vote the other way.

So for example, if there would be proposal to convene the Constituent Assembly, here is how the voting would go:

Yes
Edgardo Angara
Joker Arroyo
Pia Cayetano
Juan Ponce Enrile
Richard Gordon
Gregorio Honasan
Manuel Lapid
Ramon Revilla Jr.
Miriam Defensor Santiago
Juan Miguel Zubiri

No
Benigno Aquino III
Rodolfo Biazon
Alan Peter Cayetano
Francis Escudero
Jose Estrada
Panfilo Lacson
Loren Legarda
Ma. Consuelo Madrigal
Francis Pangilinan
Aquilino Pimentel Jr.
Manuel Roxas II
Manuel Villar

The possible NO senators who can switch to yes are:

* Legarda – Cmon, she can switch sides like it is her second nature.
* Roxas – He always plays safe, so voting Yes will not be a surprise.
* Villar – He knows how to switch sides at the right times.
* Allan Cayetano – We don’t know what’s on his mind, but I will not be surprised.

So if the votes needed is 50%+1, all the administration has to do is to get at least four NO votes to switch sides. It would be dicey if two-thirds vote is needed (I am not sure).

Some senators have signified that their support for the resolution was qualified – Pangilinan said he is for it after 2010. So there must be nothing to be afraid of.

Besides, I don’t think Gloria Arroyo needs Cha-cha to survive beyond 2010. It would be nice if she could be prime minister without term limits, but that would be impossible, given a lot of ambitious people on the wings. The best that she could ask for is for a friendly to win in 2010 (it can be done, right, Garci and Bedol?), a friendly who would guarantee that she won’t be prosecuted come July 2010. Also, Merceditas Gutierrez would still be Ombudsman by that time, and the Supreme Court would be packed by her appointees. The House of Representatives would remain friendly. So what is there for her to worry about?

The people? No. If the people wanted her out, they would have done so since 2005. Besides, it is easy to say to a pollster that they don’t support Gloria, right? Besides, who would replace her, as her supporters would say? (I dunno if they are ignorant to know that there is a vice president, or they are pretending that there is no vice president.) So no.

And, if all things fail, she can always go make herself a dictator.

Federalism suits our regionalistic thinking, and at the same time suits those with lesser ambitions (aka warlords, political lords, and/or gambling lords). And, as former National Treasurer Leonor Briones pointed out, the financial aspect of such a setup is troublesome and will surely bog down any discussion on that matter. And, THERE WILL BE THREE LEVELS OF TAXES. Surely you want that, right?

Our Charter is imperfect, and needs changing. If it has to be revised, it should be done after the 2010 elections.

29
Apr

Embrace your inner loser

From Juned:

David Goliath Event

Date: May 6, 2008
Time: 8pm
Venue: Mag:net Cafe, Bonifacio High Street

You are cordially invited to join us for a chance to embrace your inner loser.

In a testament to wit, candor and irony, meet David & Goliath’s newest brilliantly satirical horde representing what could be this generations’ biggest pop-culture paradox: being a loser has never been more cool. Expect the clever, tart-tongued graphic misfits to spin it into fun and games as they prove once and for all that there’s no better time to be a LITTLE LOSER.

RSVP

You can sign up here.

28
Apr

To blog is to influence

The Marocharim Experiment wrote about resistance and blogging, and the seeming disinterest by most bloggers to post political commentary on their blogs.

He said:

Please disagree with me on this one: I think – and this is a completely subjective and personal observation – that most bloggers do not utilize their blogs enough as a vehicle to (at the very least) exact a political influence among their peers. It’s not that people don’t see the importance of political blogging, it’s just that people do not exercise their political views and commit them to a blog entry.

First, we cannot control what bloggers would post in their blogs. As someone who dabbles in political commentary myself, I always rant offline (and sometimes online, too) about the seeming apathy by the majority over the major political and social issues of the day. I have learned (and continue to learn) that diversity governs the blogosphere, and that diversity allows for apathy. I could be so intolerant of people who shrugs off politics (there’s a post by someone about being turned off by the political discussion part of iBlog 4 and all I could say via Twitter was “Tsk”), but what could I do?

Bloggers are within their rights to post what they want. It may be frustrating on the part of a political blogger, but what can he do?

Second, while we could not control what bloggers would say, we could influence others to think about political and social issues, to talk about them, and to post about them. We do this by presenting the issues, why they are issues, and why these issues matter to them. We do this by explaining what would happen if they continue to be indifferent.

Third, my pet peeve: taking a neutral stance all because a person is lazy or refuses to think. It is so easy to say “I am neutral;” it becomes harder when you are asked to explain your stand. Then things crumble after that. You will then find out that the neutral stance was just an excuse not to participate in the political/social discussion – an escape from one’s duty to take part in governance. As a political blogger, you can engage people into a meaningful discussion, listen to their reasons, point out their mistakes, convince them that they need to participate.

So, despite the seeming indifference, if you believe in your cause, you push it, you continue discussing and explaining, you write again and again, you beat the horse till it is dead. It might be easy to just surrender, but that would not make you any different from the others, right?

28
Apr

Lost at iBlog 4

There are certain things to do when attending blogger events. Basically, you should expand your network by meeting new bloggers. You listen to talks, take down notes. Bring calling cards, or anything that will leave a good impression on everyone (chicken costume, anyone?); a calling card will do. If there’s a chance to broadcast your URL (the open mic session), grab it.

I did none of those things at iBlog 4.

Sure, I did listen to most (not all, unfortunately) of the talks, though my attention drifted from time to time. From the magician-like presentation by Juned Sonido to the wonderful and entertaining videos by Ms. Aileen Apolo and Coy Caballes to Ria Jose‘s funny asides to Mam Noemi Dado‘s presentation on online advocacies, one thought lingered in my mind. And no, I am not telling yah about it. Ok, maybe in another post.

Breaktimes were spent chatting with Dra. Tess Termulo and The Jester-in-Exile (whose cover was blown, no thanks to Juned); then with Manuel L. Quezon III, Dra. Tess, Jester, Eugene, Juned, and Benj.

I was actually looking forward to the Chicken Mafia‘s stunt, and what I thought to be a farce turned out to be true: Philos did come, and wore that chicken costume. And it was a hit! Everyone groped Philos for pictures, and I’m sure Joyfulchicken is envious ha ha ha! Imagine all those girls!

I finally got to fondlehandle a DSLR camera – and got to shoot two pics! – thanks to Dhon Jason. I will get one soon. If the economy improves, of course.

Oh, when Marcelle Fabie hit the stage, he was looking for me to be his “assistant.” It was thoughtful of him; one time, I complained that he did not show me his tricks, and so last Saturday was his chance. Too bad call of nature intervened. All was not lost however; he did show me SEVERAL tricks during the after-party, and he scares me, really (that’s my way of saying he’s awesome).

Seen at iBlog: Ade (isnabero sa personal), AJ (who came with Ernie, of course), Dexter, Fritz (too busy with someone), George, Jane, Marck, Shari.

The iBlog format this year is I think better than last year. What I mean is, the topics were better. There were still complaints, though, from other people, and saw Mam Janette Toral having to explain how the format came to be. I did saw one post that totally pissed me off, but not enough to rant about it. Anyway, for next year’s iBlog, here is my suggestion. This is not original, OK? I saw this format in action at The Varsitarian’s Thomasian Journalism Fellowship (I had attended the inaugural and the next two). Originally, it followed this year’s iBlog format, where all participants stay in one venue, listening to speakers. And since journalism is a wide field, the organizers thought of a variation of the iBlog 2 format: there were plenary sessions, one session in the morning and another one in the afternoon; and then concurrent sessions in between plenaries, grouped by subject, where participants can choose.

Of course, that would mean someone might want to sit in two sessions that share the same schedule. It can’t be helped, unless sessions are scheduled way in advance. (I hate Operations Research.)

And then there’s a complaint about Blogging 101. We can’t please everyone, I know, but that complaint has a point, in the eyes of those who were blogging since Freddie Mercury was still alive. That is why I believe the separate-track-and-plenary format is perfect for iBlog – to tailor the summit for everyone who wants to attend.

As for me, I attend iBlog for the community, to get to know new bloggers. Unfortunately for this year, it did not happen. No thanks to that preoccupation.

24
Apr

A perfect gift for a Hello Kitty fangirl

If you have a daughter/girl friend/niece/sister who is getting married and a huge Hello Kitty fan, I suggest giving her this as a wedding present (if you are the generous type, that is):

Hello Kitty Washing Machine

I am just not sure if it will really make her clothes clean. Or make her husband look cute.

(Image from Hello Kitty Hell)

23
Apr

Sumilao, Calatagan, and social justice in the Philippines

It’s been weeks since the Sumilao land case has been satisfactorily resolved (hopefully), we have another, almost similar case under the radar screens of mainstream media and the blogosphere.

This time it is a 508-hectare property at Calatagan in Batangas owned by the late Ceferino Ascue. The land was put under agrarian reform in 1990, two years after the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Law was enacted. The land was distributed to 318 tenant-farmers under the Operation Land Transfer (OLT) provision of Presidential Decree 27; 818 Emancipation Patents were distributed.

The farmers tilled the land and cultivated rice, corn, vegetables and other crops for the ten years, paying land amortizations to the government.

Five years (1995) after the land was put under agrarian reform, the heirs of Ascue sold the property to Asturias Industries (sounds familiar?). Not only did the heirs ignored that fact that they no longer owned the land at time of sale, the Register of Deeds of Batangas did not annotate the distribution of that land in the land title.

Asturias Industries then began its campaign to get the land. It applied for a Mineral Production Sharing Agreement (MPSA) and an Environmental Compliance Certificate (ECC) from the Department of Environment and Natural Resources (DENR) for a 2336.8-hectare land including the Ascue Estate in July 1997.

Asturias used those documents to question the distribution of the Ascue Estate under PD 27, claiming that the distribution was made erroneously, since the land was never used for planting rice and corn, and that Ascue did not recognize any tenancy arrangements.

The Provincial Agrarian Reform Officer (PARO) of the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) began its investigation of Asturias’ complaints. Task Force Baha was formed, and it found that “(1) procedural lapses attended the OLT coverage; (2)significant portions of the OLT-covered area were planted to sugar cane; and (3) the landowner did not recognize tenancy relations with the ARBs (agrarian reform beneficiaries).” A validating team from DAR Region IV Office noted that “it cannot be established beyond reasonable doubt that the property is planted to palay or corn and tenanted.” It then recommended the nullification of the emancipation patents.

DAR Undersecretary Conrado Navarro sustained Asturias’ complaints in August 4, 2000, basing his decision on the following:

(1) the landholding was not primarily devoted to the production of rice or corn;

(2) the tenancy relations was not clearly established and

(3) the land long ceased to be agricultural as it is “mineralized.”

This case was appealed to the Office of the President, the Court of the Appeals, and the Supreme Court. The SC upheld the DAR decision in 2005.

Everything that went for Asturias were legal. But were they right?

Social justice is a curious concept, an alien one to most of us Filipinos. It is almost utopian: fair treatment to everyone, and impartial sharing in the benefits and resources of the society. I myself can’t explain it with confidence and conviction.

That said, agrarian reform is a pillar of Philippine social justice as part of the provisions of the Charter (see Article XIII, Section 1). As always, the spirit of the law doesn’t matter; as long as we can get away from it, we twist the law to our advantage. It has become apparent that you can actually use the law to give some semblance of legality to what is morally wrong (going against the spirit of the law).

Having said that, what can I say about the Calatagan case? I just find it ironic that we are having a so-called rice crisis now, and 500 hectares of agricultural land became mineral land in a poof. Also, every thing that Asturias did were legal. But were they right?

Read a briefing on this case here.

21
Apr

Resisting tunnel vision

There has been ongoing debates on what to do with regards to the current situation in the Philippines.

A certain portion of the population (25% of the population, assuming that 50% is against Gloria Arroyo, and 25% supports her with open hearts and empty stomachs), I believe, thinks that it is better to look ahead instead of dwelling in the now. And within that 25%, there is a call to stop the current forms of resistance (resistance is futile and inconveniences everyone) and instead channel all energies towards the 2010 elections.

Some of the current “proposals” suffer from tunnel vision, I’m afraid. In medicine, tunnel vision refers to the failure of an individual’s peripheral vision. It means that a person can only see directly ahead.

In this case, tunnel vision refers to man’s propensity to look ahead without regards to the past and the now. Specifically, the propensity of some people to ignore or dismiss the present (and the past) and instead plan ahead so that what is happening now will never happen again. There is nothing wrong with that; I think it is good thinking, to think of what needs to be done to correct the current mistakes.

However, what I am totally against is tunnel vision, and for several reasons.

One, ignoring the current situation means allowing injustice to proceed without hitches. When things could be better and are not due to incompetence, wanton disregard of laws and rules, or just plain apathy to the common good, not doing anything is being complicit to the injustice of the situation.

Two, planning for the future generation is well and good, but what about the present? Sure, planning for the future generation is well and good, but that would be useless when the present has all but destroyed the things that the future would need. With widespread land conversion (to escape agrarian reform or to increase taxes on land) and deforestation, for example, what planning can save the future if we don’t stop the plunder now?

Three, what happens today has a direct effect on what will happen tomorrow. If we want to ensure that tomorrow will be better, we attend to the present. We continue what we think is good, and correct what we think is wrong. After correcting what is wrong, then we plan so that it will never happen again.

Lastly, if there is a fire, you put it out, you don’t plan on how to put it out, you just put it out. Right?

I am all for planning for the future. What I am against is the thinking that we should just plan ahead instead of dealing with the present. It is short sighted and detrimental to the common good and to the future.

Is resistance futile? No, unless we surrender to the current situation and instead hope for the best.

Why should we resist? We resist because injustice needs to be fought. We resist because it is our duty to correct our government from its their excesses. We resist because we have to preserve what we have. We resist because we have to preserve what we have for the future.

This is a DigitalFilipino.com Club sponsored post for Budget Hotels in the Philippines.

17
Apr

What. A. Day.

Every Thursday and Friday, I wear jeans. Early today, annoyed that there was no pressed pair to wear. Was about to wear slacks when mom took out a new pair, which did not need pressing. Several minutes wasted.

Then on the usual corner, I hailed this AUV. As my usual, I went towards the front seat. I let this woman get in first, and then the driver told me to sit at the back instead, even if the front seat can sit another. Disgusted, I took another AUV.

And then the MRT. I know for certain that many were late today because of it.

Arriving at the office, my brother sent me a text message, informing me that one of the hamster pups died.

What a day. And that’s just the morning.

How’s your day today?

15
Apr

My hamster puppies

My hamster Berta gave birth last Holy Thursday. Mom was about to change her cage’s bedding when she saw some critters crawling.

“Ay, ano ito, bulate?” Mom shouted in alarm. (Ay, what are these, worms?)

Later, she recognized these to be small hamsters. It was a surprise for all of us, since we did not know she was pregnant. I was alarmed, though, that there were only three, since the average for teddy bear hamsters is seven (Berto and Berta’s batch was ten, though one died).

While the mother tended to be over-productive, we could not help but take a look every time, to see their progress. In their second week, one of them managed to slip in the mother’s milk bowl. Good thing there was only less than half a millimeter of milk. We had to get Berta’s attention, since we couldn’t touch them yet (the mother might get rattled and eat them).

Last Thursday, they reached three weeks, so it was safe to touch the pups. Time to change the bedding, which we did Saturday morning. They are so malikot, I had a hard time putting them back into their mother’s cage. They could always wiggle away from my hands. Here are some pictures:
Continue reading

14
Apr

(Is there a) Deal or no deal?

Is there a deal or no deal?

Nine former Magdalo soldiers (all of them Philippine Army) recently pleaded guilty to charges of coup d’ etat, and they were handed down prison sentences from 9-40 years. The actions by Gambala and Maestrocampo surprised some people, and some speculated that a deal must have been made between the Arroyo regime and the nine.

The regime isn’t helping in quelching these speculation. Hermogenes Esperon’s reaction to the court sentence was to tell the nine to accept it. He then floated the pardon trial balloon, while members of the House of Representatives play good cop/bad cop.

And then the convicted former Magdalo soldiers asked for pardon days after their conviction; they even said sorry. A Fortress executive says that they will not granted pardon immediately; maybe a month or so?. Anyway, even Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno wants them pardoned. A few days later, the regime is seriously thinking the effects of granting pardon. And finally, the Department of National Defense and the AFP recommended that the nine be pardoned.

Given the regime’s action regarding Joseph Estrada, do you think granting pardon to nine former Magdalo soldiers is remote? Given the Arroyo regime’s actions and words for the past few days, it is not remote. I believe there is a deal, and we’ll know for sure in a few months. The best indication that there is a deal can be best glanced from one of the motives by the nine to do an about-face: they wanted to be with their families. If there is no deal, they won’t be doing an about-face. They were promised a pardon so that they could be with their families.

My only hope now is that history will not repeat itself. During the negotiations between Roy Cimatu (representing the regime) and the Magdalos on July 27, 2003 (to end the Oakwood mutiny), the agreement was for the Magdalos to return to barracks and surrender under the Articles of War. Ramon Farolan wrote about the recollections of former columnist Max Soliven regarding the Oakwood mutiny (he was present in the negotiations). Let me quote Soliven:

What bothers me is that the mutineers or rebels whatever may be tagged on them, are being double-crossed. Nobody intends to glorify them as heroes or justify their deed, certainly not this writer. But since I was in there with the negotiating group, I’ll have to speak out about what was agreed…

Being charged in civilian court was rejected by the mutineers. They surrendered themselves to military justice, under the Articles of War—in sum, court martial…

Military justice is what they were unanimously pledged by the government panelists—not prosecution in the regular justice system. Otherwise, they might not have surrendered. And you know the consequences of a firefight and the detonation of the explosives they had planted all over the place.

Was anything written down? A surrender agreement? Of course not. But we must consider that an individual’s ‘word of honor’ is supposed to be as binding as a piece of paper. Palabra de honor was what was invoked in the end. Gen. Cimatu pledged himself as an officer and a gentleman, and so did the rest of the government panel …

Are rebels, putschists or mutineers ‘scum,’ not worthy of being given such pledges? Nonsense. Word of honor binds those who give them, not the accused or the imprisoned. Cimatu and the government officers and officials involved should honor this deal.

Why is it so important for the President and her government to honor this commitment? Because if it is not upheld, who knows, what real trouble will be provoked among the far bigger number of men ‘outside’ who did not participate in the so-called coup or mutiny? I kid thee not, they are there, waiting to see whether reforms are instituted and whether heads upstairs will roll …

The Chief Executive and Commander in Chief must at least show sincerity under what was stipulated in the final agreement, the Articles of War. What about Lina’s filing of cases? Perhaps, this even falls under double jeopardy, not just a double cross.

I repeat: the Oakwood Five leaders asked for leniency for their men and even full reinstatement for their followers ‘without hitches.’ This was not conceded in the final public announcement. But the deal on the Articles of War was clearly and unequivocally announced to the media and the general public …

– Max Soliven, August 4, 2003

I hope they will not be twice betrayed.

Ellen Tordesillas called the nine’s actions as pathetic. As much as I agree with her points, I cannot begrudge the nine if they were willing to support this regime and eat their words just to be with their families. But this point by Ms. Tordesillas will haunt them forever:

Since with his appeal for presidential pardon, he is willing to support a liar, a cheat, and a thief, I’m wondering what is Gambala going to teach his son about truth and honesty.

I’d like to share with him something from the book, “The Kite Runner”. The narrator in the book, Am, tells about the time when he was a boy, the mullahs in Afghanistan said drinking alcohol is a terrible sin. He relayed the lesson to his father, who drinks.

The father made him sit on his lap for serious talk: “No matter what the mullah teaches, there is only one sin, only one. And that is theft. Every other sin is a variation of theft.”

The father continued: “When you kill a man, you steal a life. You steal his wife’s right to a husband, rob his children of a father. When you tell a lie, you steal someone’s right to the truth. When you cheat, you steal the right to fairness.”

What will Gambala and the eight other officers tell their children about Gloria Arroyo?