Corona Impeachment Judgment Day – Acquittal on Article III, VII seen

Supreme Court Chief Justice Renato Corona will most likely get acquitted in Article III and VII. The first one charges that Corona flip-flopped on the case involving Flight Attendants and Ste­ward Association of the Philippines (FASAP) and Philippine Airlines.

Although it is highly irregular for the Supreme Court (SC) to reverse its own ruling repeatedly, this cannot be blamed on Corona alone. This writer subscribes to the argument leveled by Atty. Dennis Manalo and retired Supreme Court Justice Serafin Cuevas that the SC makes its decisions as a collegial body.

Will Chief Justice Renato Corona say goodbye to his post after today’s impeachment verdict? (credits: www.asiancorrespondent.com)

In effect, Corona is merely the court’s primus inter pares (“first among equals”). And besides, the High Court has already reversed itself on a number of high-profile cases in the past. In 2004, it flip-flopped on the issue of allowing 100% foreign-owned mining firms to operate in the country (they voted against it before voting for it ten months later).

Meanwhile, Article VII centers on the alleged questionable circumstances surrounding SC’s issuance of a temporary restraining order which effectively set aside the Aquino government-issued hold departure order against former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Gloria Arroyo swearing in Renato Corona as Chief Justice (from Philippine Daily Inquirer)

Corona may have ruled overwhelmingly in favor of now-Pampanga Rep. Arroyo (78% of the time, according to Newsbreak), but the prosecution has not established that the chief magistrate exerted undue influence over a majority of his colleagues for them to vote in the same way as him. It is important to point out that part of Justice Secretary Leila De Lima’s testimony for this part was stricken off the record for being “hearsay.”

As noted above, the focal point of attention is on Article II. Corona’s fate will depend on how the 23 senator-judges regard his defense that:

Serafin Cuevas: “Non-disclosure of Corona’s dollar accounts is not impeachable.” (credits: www.getrealphilippines.com)

1. He did not mention his dollar accounts in his annual SALN (in good faith, his lawyer Eduardo Delos Angeles stressed) because he is not required to do so because of Republic Act 1426 (or the Foreign Currency Deposit Act), and

2. He did not declare list the money and properties being attributed to him in the said document because those are co-mingled (ergo, not solely his, according to Cuevas).

Keep in mind that 16 votes are needed to secure Corona’s impeachment in any one of the three remaining articles. It is reasonable to expect these tnen senators to convict Corona: Angara, Drilon, Estrada, Guingona, Lacson, Osmena, Pangilinan, Pimentel, Recto, and Trillanes. All the rest can swing either way.

While it is almost sure that majority of senators will vote for Corona’s conviction in Article II, he may be acquitted if the prosecution fails to get the 16 votes necessary to impeach him.

Noynoy Aquino flip-flops on waiving his bank secrecy rights

President Benigno Aquino III has shunned a proposal made by Senator Alan Peter Cayetano for his cabinet members to sign waivers to open their financial records to the public.

This is in connection to a now-withdrawn dare made by Chief Justice Renato Corona that he will waive his rights under the Bank Secrecy Law and Foreign Currency Deposit Act only if Senator Franklin Drilon and the 188 House solons who endorsed the impeachment complaint against him will do the same. Deputy presidential spokesperson Abigail Valte said it is up to members of the cabinet to open their respective bank accounts.

According to the Philippine Daily Inquirer, only four House solons indicated willingness to sign the waiver. One of them is Rep. Antonio Tinio of the Alliance of Concerned Teacher, who expressed his intention via Twitter almost as soon as Corona issued the challenge. In his appearance before the impeachment court yesterday, Corona said that he is now unconditionally opening his bank accounts.

His move was immediately shot down by Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile, who declared that the tribunal is “a hearer, and not a provider of evidence.” For his part, Marikina Rep. Miro Quimbo, a spokesperson for the prosecution panel, described the move a an “attempt to prolong the trial.” Baffled by the indifference shown by both the prosecution panel and his colleagues in the Senate, Senator Francis Escudero said: “It seems that no one is interested all of a sudden. I cannot understand that… I’m urging both sides, for the sake of the country and the public, to make use of this opportunity.”

in 2010, then-candidate Aquino stressed his willingness to waive his bank secrecy rights for the sake of transparency. (screenshot from the Senate website)

Back when he was still campaigning for president, then-candidate Aquino claimed that he is willing to waive his rights provided under the Bank Secrecy Law “to set an example for others in his administration if elected president.” Read his office’s press release here, dated February 24, 2010. This is not the first time that Aquino had flip-flopped from his previously stated campaign pledges.

Shortly before his proclamation as winner of the 2010 presidential elections, Aquino stated that the passage of the Freedom of Information (FOI) bill will be one of his administration’s priorities.  Two years into his presidency, the bill remains pending in the congress, and with some media groups saying that it is in fact tougher now to have access to certain government documents.

From The Economist (May 26, 2012) -> “A flurry of optimism about the Philippines, a regional underachiever, is only partly justified”

Corona Impeachment Trial Day 40 – Is the game almost over for him?

I live-twitted the Day 40 of Chief Justice Renato Corona’s impeachment trial, where the accused himself took the witness stand. When Serafin Cuevas, the defense lead counsel, told Senate President and impeachment court presiding officer Juan Ponce Enrile that his client will be making an opening statement, I thought it will last for just 10 minutes at the most. Corona ended up speaking for three hours.

In numerous occasions, Enrile interrupted him to ask how much time he still needs to wrap up his statement. This is like having a human resource officer indirectly telling a job applicant to finish off his or her self-introduction. Speaking for three hours is forgivable, but for a chief justice to give a rambling speech is not. In the first two hours of his statement, Corona somehow managed to squeeze in lots of subjects in the first two hours of his remarks, from his wife’s Katipunero descendant, to the Cojuangco’s Hacienda Luisita, and the family conflict between the Coronas and the Basas. Corona’s two hour verbal diarrhea earned much ridicule online.

To me, the best part of his opening statement was when Corona showed a PowerPoint presentation refuting Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales’ accusation that he has $10 to $12 million hidden in 82 bank accounts, saying that he only has four at the moment. He gained points for being able to explain that he does not currently maintain that many bank deposits. Many considered his signing of a waiver giving everyone access to his bank records and list of properties a gutsy move, particularly his dare to all legislators who endorsed the impeachment complaint against him and Senator Franklin Drilon to do the same thing.

After that, Corona shot himself in the foot. All of a sudden, he blurted out that he’d like to be excused from the proceedings and immediately walked out of the session hall even if Enrile did not formally discharge him. According to media reports, Corona tried to get out of the Senate building either through the elevator or the fire exit, although he was prevented from doing so since Enrile ordered all exit points closed. His lawyers, apparently caught off guard by their client’s actions, clumsily explained that Corona had to rush out of the hearing area because he is already close to fainting (it was revealed earlier that he is diabetic).

Corona’s action is puzzling. Had he gotten his way, he would have been able to unceremoniously sneak out of the Senate building right there and then. If that happened, Corona will be something like a fugitive of sorts, even if he is truly physically unwell. Although Corona’s lengthy opening statement clearly tested Enrile’s patience, he still let the former finish his piece. It is only right for Enrile therefore to expect Corona to observe proper courtroom decorum.

Because of Corona’s erratic behavior, the viewing public now focused more on his apparent walkout rather than on his rebuttal of Carpio-Morales’ testimony. Acting like a disrespected grandfather, Enrile warned Corona’s lawyers that if the Chief Justice does not want to be cross-examined, his three-hour testimony will be stricken off the record. He added that he will also make his fellow Senator-Judges render a judgment on the trial soon after.

As it is, Corona’s actions set in motion many things that are now beyond his control. He is now compelled to undergo cross examination this Friday, May25, despite his supposed medical condition. And with final oral arguments set on Monday, the Senate is bound to wrap up the five-week old trial as early as Tuesday. The winner-take-all political battle is finally headed to a conclusion. ving �
r mn
@p� officer indirectly telling a job applicant to finish off his or her self-introduction. Speaking for three hours is forgivable, but for a chief justice to give a rambling speech is not. In the first two hours of his statement, Corona somehow managed to squeeze in lots of subjects in the first two hours of his remarks, from his wife’s Katipunero descendant, to the Cojuangco’s Hacienda Luisita, and the family conflict between the Coronas and the Basas. Corona’s two hour verbal diarrhea earned much ridicule online.

To me, the best part of his opening statement was when Corona showed a PowerPoint presentation refuting Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales’ accusation that he has $10 to $12 million hidden in 82 bank accounts, saying that he only has four at the moment. He gained points for being able to explain that he does not currently maintain that many bank deposits. Many considered his signing of a waiver giving everyone access to his bank records and list of properties a gutsy move, particularly his dare to all legislators who endorsed the impeachment complaint against him and Senator Franklin Drilon to do the same thing.

After that, Corona shot himself in the foot. All of a sudden, he blurted out that he’d like to be excused from the proceedings and immediately walked out of the session hall even if Enrile did not formally discharge him. According to media reports, Corona tried to get out of the Senate building either through the elevator or the fire exit, although he was prevented from doing so since Enrile ordered all exit points closed. His lawyers, apparently caught off guard by their client’s actions, clumsily explained that Corona had to rush out of the hearing area because he is already close to fainting (it was revealed earlier that he is diabetic).

Corona’s action is puzzling (aside from being detrimental in his aim to sway public opinion to his side). Had he gotten his way, he would have been able to unceremoniously sneak out of the Senate building right there and then. If that happened, Corona will be something like a fugitive of sorts, even if he is truly physically unwell. Although Corona’s lengthy opening statement clearly tested Enrile’s patience, he still let the former finish his piece. It is only right for Enrile therefore to expect Corona to observe proper courtroom decorum.

Because of Corona’s erratic behavior, the viewing public now focused more on his apparent walkout rather than on his rebuttal of Carpio-Morales’ testimony. Acting like a disrespected grandfather, Enrile warned Corona’s lawyers that if the Chief Justice does not want to be cross-examined, his three-hour testimony will be stricken off the record. He added that he will also make his fellow Senator-Judges render a judgment on the trial soon after.

Corona’s action set in motion events that are now beyond his control. If he fails to appear on the court come Friday, the Senate can ask the defense to rest its case and submit their formal offer of evidence. And with final oral arguments set on May 28, this five-month old political drama may be over by Tuesday.

FINAL NOTE: From the standpoint of communication arts, Corona’s appearance in the impeachment court last Tuesday was a huge error. Here’s why:
1) The contents of the first two hours of his opening statement was disorganized. As noted above, Corona’s high time came when he made that PowerPoint presentation. Things could have been better if Corona made his opening statement more concise and straight on.
2) He forgot the limited attention span of his listeners. By the time he presented his slideshow, most of his target audience must have already lost their attention.
3) What non-verbal message will his apparent walk-out convey to the senator-judges and the public in general? Certainly not the way he would have want it.

LGBT rights in the Philippines – any signs of progress this 2012?

“Individual rights are not subject to a public vote; a majority has no right to vote away the rights of a minority; the political function of rights is precisely to protect minorities from oppression by majorities” – from Ayn Rand’s “Collectived Rights”

United States President Barack Obama last week became the first sitting American leader to endorse gay marriages. “I think same-sex couples should be able to get married,” Obama said during an interview with ABC News’ Robin Roberts. His announcement was expectedly cheered by gay rights advocates and slammed by his critics. And for his efforts, Newsweek magazine dubbed Obama as the “first gay president” in its latest issue.

Andrew Sullivan, an openly gay columnist for Newsweek magazine, praised Obama for shifting not just the stand of the whole Democratic Party on the issue, but also how mainstream America sees it. Sullivan went on to enumerate the advances achieved by the LGBT sector during since Obama took office in January 2009.

Newsweek Magazine calls Obama the first gay president of America

The Obama government had dropped the 17-year-old policy of barring openly gay Americans from serving in the military. Last year, his administration stopped defending the Defense of Marriage Act, which denied national recognition to gay couples. Obviously, the way Americans see the subject has also evolved through the years, as an article in Yahoo News suggests. According to a study by the Pew Research Center, 47% of Americans now support same-sex marriage, up from just 35% back in 2001.

Obama’s historic declaration inevitably triggered renewed discussions on LGBT rights in the Philippines. Writing for Rappler.com, prominent gay rights activist Jonas Bagas flatly stated that this development “won’t alter anything here fundamentally.” He nevertheless added that the once-overwhelmingly negative social attitudes and behavior of Filipinos toward homosexuality and same-sex marriage are gradually changing, mainly in part due to the social media.

Nevertheless, the progress achieved by the local LGBT sector remains limited even if President Benigno Aquino III in 2010 received the endorsement of Ang Ladlad, the first accredited political party for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender Filipinos. For one, the Anti-Gay and Lesbian Discrimination Bill or House Bill 1483 remains stalled in Congress even after many years.

Last month, Aquino signed a law decriminalizing vagrancy. However, the law was criticized by women’s groups sinceit left a key provision that only women can be considered as prostitutes untouched. More tellingly, one of his spokespersons reiterated that Aquino does not share Obama’s belief on marriage equality (as if the reporter who threw this question expected another answer).

Religion now seems to be the biggest stumbling block to further advances vis-à-vis LGBT rights in the Philippines. Last December, the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) objected to the passage of the Anti-Ethnic, Racial or Religious Discrimination and Profiling Act of 2011. Despite not being LGBT-specific, CBCP lawyer Ronald Reyes baselessly claimed that the bill will “open the door for same-sex marriages in the country.”

On the other hand, two Filipino celebrities, 1999 Miss Universe runner-up Miriam Quiambao and boxing champion Manny Pacquiao, lately used the Bible to reiterate their anti-gay sentiments. Quiambao wrote on Twitter: “Homosexuality is not a sin but it is a lie from the devil. Do not be deceived. God loves gays and wants them to know the truth.” She eventually apologized for her remarks after receiving flak from netizens.

In an interview with the National Conservative Examiner in US, Pacquiao slammed Obama for his pro-gay marriage stance, citing Leviticus 20:13. “If a man lies with a man as one lies with a woman, both of them have done what is detestable,” Pacquiao said. He added that gay marriages “adulterate the altar of matrimony, like in the days of Sodom and Gomorrah of Old.” Pacquiao’s supposed defense of traditional marriage crumbles haplessly when put against his record of womanizing. Apart from his much-hyped affair with starlet Krista Ranillo in 2009, Pacquiao also has at least one confirmed lovechild.

Below is an image of a poster that this writer saw in the intersection of Quezon Avenue and Araneta Avenue in Quezon City last week. Curiously, the group responsible for this poster chose not to disclose its identity. Just like Quiambao and Pacquiao, the poster mentions a verse from the Bible to condemn homosexuals.

Pray the gay away? LOL.

And as an added punch line, the group appeals to whoever reads the poster to pray “for them.” Pray for divine intervention so that LGBT Filipinos can become heterosexuals one day? As in the case of having a comprehensive national population policy, the Philippines stands to be years behind other countries once again as regards the advancement of LGBT rights. Indeed, there’s still a long way to go before LGBT Filipinos can achieve what their American counterparts are already enjoying.

Will China deal with PH on equal footing? If UN sides with PH, will China honor it?

This is the second of my two-part blog on the Scarborough Shoal standoff. The first one examines the existing PH-US mutual defense treaty.

The New York Times mentioned the territorial dispute between China and the Philippines over certain areas in the West Philippine Sea (or South China Sea) in the May 2 edition of “Room for Debate,” a regular section of the newspaper where experts give their views on the hottest issues of the day. The May 2 edition of “Room for Debate” is titled “Are we headed for a cold war with China?” – referring to the United States government.

New York Times asks, “Are We Headed for a Cold War With China?”

The standoff over Scarborough Shoal and the Spratlys Island should be seen in its proper geopolitical context. Although it appears that China is just after the aquatic resources and potential gas reserves in the West Philippine Sea, the country is actually seeking to dominate the entire area. Dan Blumenthal, a resident fellow at the American Enterprise Institute, put it this way: “China has greater ambitions now that it is more powerful. China wants more control, if not hegemony, over the Asia Pacific.”

That obviously is one scenario the United States dreads. But given the tough realities US is facing right now, all they can do is pronounce neutrality on one hand while reaffirming its treaty-mandated commitment to the Philippines on the other. No one among China, United States, and the Philippines can afford an armed military conflict. If China decides to use its military superiority over an impoverished country like the Philippines, it risks being regarded as a giant bully – tarnishing its international image in the process.

Since the Philippines cannot really count on America’s support in the event of a shooting war with China, the only option that Filipino leaders have is to settle the Scarborough Shoal dispute diplomatically. The Philippine Department of Foreign Affairs has already referred the case to the International Tribunal on the Laws of the Sea (ITLOS) for arbitration, a step China vehemently opposes.

China’s refusal to cooperate means they are not confident of being able to substantiate their so-called historical claims to the disputed areas. Instead of asking the ITLOS or the International Court of Justice to resolve the standoff, Beijing has repeatedly said it prefers dealing with the matter through bilateral negotiations. “Let’s not go the legal way. Let’s do it the friendly way,” high ranking Chinese government officials told Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario.

DFA Secretary Albert del Rosario (credits: DFA website)

During bilateral negotiations, each party involved must recognize each other as their equal. Is it realistic for the Philippines to expect that China will deal with it on equal footing? That being not the case, the best way to go is still to ask the abovementioned international organizations to arbitrate the validity of claims raised by both China and Philippines on those disputed areas. Even if China holds a permanent seat in the UN Security Council, the said world body acts under the principle of “sovereign equality of all its members.”

Recently, Henry Bensurto Jr. of the DFA Commission on Maritime and Ocean Affairs Secretariat disclosed during a Senate hearing that a provision in the UN Convention on the Laws of the Seas “allows signatory states to avail themselves of compulsory dispute settlement in cases when consensual mechanisms for settlement fail.” If this is indeed true, then the Philippines should waste no time to utilize this option.

And while the case is being tackled there, all nations must refrain from making any provocative actions in the contested areas within West Philippine Sea. If the ITLOS eventually affirm the claim made by the Philippines, will China abide by the ruling? And consequently, what will the UN do if China continues its aggressive behavior in the disputed territories even after it has ruled in favor of the Philippines? Abangan.

Alfredo Lim vs Joseph Estrada for Mayor of Manila in 2013

Lim and Estrada = It’s complicated

With much fanfare, former president Joseph Estrada transferred out of his long-time Polk Street, San Juan residence to his new home in Sta. Mesa, Manila yesterday morning. Estrada, who was found guilty of plunder in 2007, confirmed his bid to unseat incumbent Manila Mayor Alfredo Lim in the 2013 midterm elections. He also tapped incumbent Vice Mayor Francisco “Isko Moreno” Domagoso as his running-mate.

According to Title Two of the Local Government Code, a candidate for mayor must be a registered voter in the city where he or she intends to run for at least one year before the day of the elections. Domagoso’s decision to break from Lim and align with Estrada is somehow befuddling since the latter is already seeking his third and final term. Given that they ran together in 2010, it is likely that Lim would anoint Domagoso as his successor once he becomes term-limited.

Former President Joseph “Erap” Estrada and Isko Moreno (Francisco Domagoso in real life), Vice Mayor of Manila

Lim and Estrada both ran for the presidency in 1998. Estrada won the race with over ten million votes, while Lim finished a poor fifth in a field of eight candidates. In January 2000, Estrada appointed Lim as Department of Interior and Local Government secretary. A year later, Lim joined 10 other members of the Estrada cabinet in resigning at the height of EDSA People Power II in 2001.

A few days after Estrada was ousted, the Philippine Star reported that Lim “urged all officials and employees of the DILG and its attached agencies to extend all-out support to the Arroyo administration.” Lim, who served as Manila mayor from 1992 to 1998, sought to reclaim his old post in that year’s elections but lost to incumbent Lito Atienza.

In 2004, Lim ran and won a senate seat under the banner of Koalisyon ng Nagkakaisang Pilipino. Actor and Estrada bosom buddy Fernando Poe, Jr. was the party’s standard bearer that year. Halfway through his six-year senate term, Lim decided to run again for Manila mayor, this time against Ali Atienza (the elder Atienza is term-limited). He ran under the Genuine Opposition ticket, and Estrada even appeared in a television advertisement for him. Lim defeated the younger Atienza by almost 100,000 votes.

The rather good relationship between Estrada and Lim went downhill starting in 2008, when the latter abruptly resigned from the former’s Partido ng Masang Pilipino. The rift began when Lim ordered the city takeover of the Vitas Slaughterhouse in Tondo, Manila. The slaughterhouse is owned by the family of Councilor Dennis Alcoreza, an ally of Atienza. During the eviction, policemen had to literally carry Alcoreza out of the slaughterhouse. Alcoreza filed criminal and administrative charges against Lim and five other city hall officials before the Ombudsman, but the body junked the case last year.

Lim successfully won reelection in 2010 over the elder Atienza, defeating his nemesis by over 200,000 votes. He ran under the Liberal Party while Atienza had the blessings of Estrada. Atienza in return endorsed Estrada’s presidential bid. Estrada placed a strong second to eventual winner Benigno Aquino III, garnering over nine million votes.

Alfredo Lim and Isko Moreno ran together under the banner of Liberal Party in 2010.

Estrada the Carpetbagger?

Estrada began considering running for mayor of Manila middle of last year. Estrada emphasizes his Manila roots by saying that he was born in Tondo and that his father served as a long-time Manila city engineer. Despite this, Estrada, who served as mayor of San Juan from 1969 to 1986, is still vulnerable to charges of being a carpetbagger.

Carpetbaggers are politicians who move to another district/city/province, even if they have long resided in another place, just for the purpose of getting elected. Here are recent examples:

1. In 2007, Senator Lito Lapid transferred his voter registration from Pampanga to Makati to challenge incumbent Mayor (and now Vice President) Jejomar Binay. Binay was reelected by a margin of 170,000 votes.

2. Richard Gomez was disqualified in 2010 from joining the congressional race in Ormoc, Leyte because he failed to meet the abovementioned one-year residency rule for candidates. The COMELEC made its final ruling on the matter six days before the elections. His wife Lucy Torres is now occupying that seat.

3. Margarita “Tingting” Cojuangco, former vice governor of Tarlac, filed her candidacy to be the vice governor of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). The Aquino administration moved the ARMM polls to coincide with the 2013 midterm elections.

One indication of Estrada’s voter appeal in Manila is his performance in the city during the 2010 presidential polls. Aquino received 298,217 votes in the country’s capital city while Estrada placed second with 214,517 votes. Administration candidate Gilbert Teodoro placed a distant third with 72,521. See the complete congressional canvass results for that year’s presidential elections here.

The 2013 mayoralty race in Manila for now appears to be a two-corner affair between Lim and Estrada. Jojo Robles, columnist for Manila Standard, wrote that Estrada will only run if he is sure to defeat Lim. Otherwise, he will back Moreno instead. This is because Estrada cannot afford to close his long political career with two successive electoral defeats.

Manila Rep. Trisha Bonoan-David (4th District) can be a dark horse in the 2013 mayoralty race

What will now happen to former mayor Lito Atienza? Will other mayoralty aspirants, including possibly 4^th District Rep. Trisha Bonoan-David, emerge? Is Estrada’s supposed mayoralty bid just a bluff meant to show everyone his remaining political clout? Until the deadline for the filing of certificate of candidacies comes, nothing is certain.

Also read:

Latest Eraption: Kung may hirap, may ginhawa (from The Philippine Star)

Lim lashes back at Isko Moreno, Estrada: Attacks come from ‘trapos’ (from The Philippine Daily Inquirer)

PH can’t depend on US in conflict vs China despite the Mutual Defense Treaty

First of a two-part series

Over the weekend, the Department of Foreign Affairs (DFA) announced that the United States will triple its military funding for the Philippines this year. The Southeast Asian country stands to get $30 million from Washington this 2012, up from $11.9 million it received last year.

The news came days after DFA Secretary Albert del Rosario and defense chief Voltaire Gazmin went to the American capital for a “2 plus 2” meeting with their respective counterparts, Hillary Clinton and Leon Panetta. The high-level discussion centered on the four-week standoff between China and the Philippines at the Scarborough Shoal (or Panatag Shoal for Filipinos). “We oppose the threat or use of force by any party to advance its claim,” Clinton said.

{L to R} Defense chief Voltaire Gazmin and Foreign Affairs Secretary Albert del Rosario with their US counterparts, Leon Panetta and Hillary Clinton (credits: Philippine Daily Inquirer)

It is inevitable for the US to be involved in the raging maritime dispute between the two Asian countries. America has a 60-year-old mutual defense treaty (MDT) with the Philippines. Signed in August 1951, the eight-article treaty states that America will come to the aid of its former colony and vice versa whenever the latter’s territorial integrity, political independence, or security is threatened by an “external armed attack in the Pacific area” (Article III).

Both parties recognize that an attack on either of the parties “would be dangerous to its own peace and safety” (Article IV). Such “armed attack” includes any of the following: a) an armed attack on the metropolitan territory of either of the Parties, or b) on the island territories under its jurisdiction in the Pacific Ocean, its armed forces, public vessels, or aircraft in the Pacific (Article V). The MDT therefore is like an insurance of sorts for the Philippines as it confronts a fast-rising China, but is it really the case?

It must be recalled that together with the infamous parity rights (where Americans were given the same rights as Filipinos to exploit the natural resources of the Philippines), MDT came into being shortly after World War II.  Teodoro Agoncillo, the preeminent 20^th century Filipino historian, in 1960 described the “highly touted” identical interests of the Philippines and the United States as “more rhetorical and sentimental than real and substantial.” He added: “No two independent nations ever had or could have identical national interests owing to geographic, economic, and ideological factors^[1].”

Teodoro Agoncillo, Philippine historian (1912-1985)

Still embroiled in a decade-long war in Afghanistan, the US is certainly not in a position to engage in another military conflict, especially with a fellow superpower. First, their economy is still in a recession. And after the debacle in Iraq committed by the Bush administration, it will be very hard for US leaders to justify to the American public why they need to meddle in another foreign war.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul, a Republican presidential candidate, argues that America should not be acting like the policeman of the world anymore because of its limited resources. “It’s time we quit this! It’s trillions of dollars we’re spending on these wars!” Paul once declared in a debate. His presidential run may not be successful, but his platform of non-interventionism has gained many adherents across America.

Texas Rep. Ron Paul is one of the leading advocates of a non-interventionist US foreign policy

Advocates of a more aggressive US foreign policy include Arizona Sen. John McCain and Connecticut Sen. Joseph Lieberman. McCain was the Republican presidential nominee in 2008 while Lieberman was the running mate of Democrat Al Gore in the 2000 presidential elections. Both visited the country January of this year. Their hawkish views has been sidelined in this election cycle, a year when even the Republican Party, which used to campaign on an anti-terrorism platform, has focused more on the economy than foreign policy.

---

[1] Agoncillo, Teodoro and O. M. Alfonso. A Short History of the Filipino People. University of the Philippines Press. Manila, 1960. p. 570

Read: Philippines Role May Expand as U.S. Adjusts Asia Strategy (from New York Times)

2010 Philippine Census of Population – a case for passing the RH bill

The National Statistics Office released earlier this month the results of the 2010 Census of Population and Housing. The figures were made official by President Benigno Aquino III through Proclamation 362, which he signed last March 30. The census, conducted from May 14 to June 17, 2010 with May 1, 2010 as reference date, show that there were 92,337,852 Filipinos during the study period.

NSO noted in a press statement that the Philippine population increased by 15.83 million from its 2000 total of 76.51 million. The agency added that this translates to a population growth rate (PGR) of 1.9 percent from 2000 to 2010. This figure is nominally lower than the 2.34 percent population growth rate recorded from 1990 to 2000.

For the twenty year period between 1990 and 2010, the population grew by 2.12 percent. Prior to 2010, the last census was done in 2007. It placed the national population at 88,566,732 with a growth rate of 2.04 percent from 2000.

The conduct of a national census is governed by Batas Pambansa Blg. 72 and Commonwealth Act 591. The Philippine Star’s Iris Gonzales reported two years ago that “about 58,000 enumerators, 11,500 team supervisors, 3,300 census area supervisors, and 2,800 assistant census area supervisors” will be involved in the 2010 census. A total budget of P2.16 billion had been allotted for the entire project.

Does the lower PGR mean that the long-pending reproductive health bill isn’t needed anymore? In her 2008 State of the Nation Address (SONA), then-President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo noted that the 2.04 percent growth rate recorded in the 2007 census was achieved by her administration “by promoting natural family planning and female education.”

In 2008, then-President Arroyo said: “Informed choice should mean letting more couples, who are mostly Catholics, know about natural family planning."

And in a statement that must have slighted former President Fidel Ramos who is present during that SONA, Arroyo added that the said PGR is lower than “the 2.36 (PGR recorded) in the 1990s, when artificial birth control was pushed.” Arroyo lamented that “long years of pushing contraceptives made it synonymous to family planning.” She (wrongly) declared: “Informed choice should mean letting more couples, who are mostly Catholics, know about natural family planning.”

It will be presumptuous for groups and individuals opposed to the Reproductive Health (RH) bill to cite the lower PGR (as of 2010) as a sign that the said measure is no longer needed. Although the 1.9 percent PGR recorded in 2010 is lower relative to previous censuses, it is still the second highest in the whole Southeast Asia. Timor Leste’s PGR of 1.96% may be higher than the Philippines, but that country has a population of just a little over a million, according to the US Central Intelligence Agency’s 2012 World Fact Book.

There are several factors that may have contributed to the continuing nominal decline of the national population growth. In response to Arroyo’s 2008 SONA, Dr. Grace Cruz from the University of the Philippines Population Institute clarified that population growth has slowed down “not through natural family planning but due to lower fertility and higher use of contraceptives.”

It is safe to assume that more and more women are taking it upon themselves to use birth control methods despite strong pressure from the Catholic Church against contraceptives because they are aware of the economic hardships they will have endure because of an unplanned pregnancy. Some may even be inclined to practice abstinence or delay marriage plans altogether.

Ramon San Pascual is the outgoing director of Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD)

Ramon San Pascual, outgoing director of the Philippine Legislators’ Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD), stressed in a statement that the Philippines can achieve a lower birth rate if not for the absence of a comprehensive national RH policy. San Pascual, who will soon lead the Asian Forum of Parliamentarians for Population and Development in Bangkok, Thailand, also reiterated that 33 percent of total pregnancies among Filipino women are either mistimed or unplanned.

Further aggravating the situation, according to him, is the lack of access to family planning education and services by the poor. In declaring the need to improve maternal health as one of its eight-point Millennium Development Goals, the United Nations noted: “Giving birth is especially risky in Southern Asia and sub-Saharan Africa, where most women deliver without skilled care.”

For his part, Benjamin de Leon, president of the Forum for Family Planning and Development (The Forum), echoed San Pascual’s appeal for Filipinos not to regard the census figures as plain statistics. “We should look beyond the numbers and think about what this means in terms of provision of services.  Each year, 1.7 million more Filipinos will demand and deserve basic services of food, shelter, health and education to name a few,” De Leon expounded.

He cited as an example the lingering shortage of classrooms and other school essentials in public education institutions around the country. “Education and access to health are connected,” De Leon pointed out. The results obtained from censuses is said to be important because it will be used by the government in policy making. If that is truly the case, then lwmakers should take due notice and pass the RH bill.

Analyzing Philippines’ North Korea rocket launch problem

North Korea’s much hyped rocket launch ended in embarrassment earlier today, as it “broke apart before escaping the earth’s atmosphere and fell into the sea.” But even if the launch is an utter failure, the isolated East Asian nation will have to face more punitive actions from different countries around the world for pushing through with this activity.

When North Korea’s “dear leader” Kim Jong Il died suddenly last December, there were hopes that his son and designated successor Kim Jong Un would provide the reclusive state with a fresh start and “some hope of stability.” In an editorial a few days after Kim Jong Un began his reign, American newspaper Christian Science Monitor (CSM) speculated that he might be not “as heartless as his father was about the fact that a quarter of (North Koreans) are near starvation.”

Instead of pursuing further militarization, the younger Kim may “be more concerned about his country’s rising dependence on trade with China,” CSM added. For his part, British foreign minister William Hague said: “This could be a turning point for North Korea. We hope that their new leadership will recognise that engagement with the international community offers the best prospect of improving the lives of ordinary North Korean people.”

Kim Jong Un, said to be in his late 20s, is the new supreme leader of North Korea

Fast forward to April 2012. The initial optimism toward the younger Kim’s leadership priorities must have dissipated by now. Instead of making his country, formally known as the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea, veer away from its long-held reputation as a hermit state, the new NoKor leader decided to take several steps backward.

This week, a 90-ton Unha-3 rocket (known as Kwangmyongsong-3) will be launched in Pyongan, North Korea. This will be part of the nation’s festivities in commemoration of the 100^th birth anniversary of its founder Kim Il Sung. And while the rogue East Asian country is insisting that it is just a weather satellite, its neighbors as well as other countries around the world are apparently not convinced. Hillary Clinton, the United States Secretary of State, called this move “a direct threat to regional security.”

Had the missile launch not ended in failure, rocket debris may have reached Philippine waters (photo from NDRRMC)

One country which is obviously taking this rocket launch seriously is the Philippines. In an 8-page update released last April 4, the National Disaster Risk Reduction and Management Council noted that although Unha is classified as a space launch vehicle, “it is essentially a Taepodong missile, which is being developed as a delivery system for weapons of mass destruction.” The exact timing of the missile launch is unknown, but the national government will be implementing the following as precautionary measures:

1. A stay-indoors policy for those living in Luzon from April 12 to 16, particularly from 6AM to 12 PM (this order is unrealistic, to say the least)

2. A “No Fly Zone” in the flight path of the missile (as suggested by the Civil Aviation Authority and the Philippine Air Force)

3. A “No Sail Zone” policy in the areas likely to be affected – to be implemented by the Maritime Industry Authority, the Philippine Coast Guard, and the Philippine Navy

4. A “No Fishing Zone” (through the Department of Interior and Local Government) in areas where debris of the rocket are likely to fall

North Korea’s erratic behavior since the Korean War-era is one of the main reasons why mandatory military service continues to be a constitutional duty for all able-bodied South Korean males. This explains why well-known actors such as Lee Dong Wook (My Girl), Hyun Bin (My Name Is Kim Sam Soon), and Lee Dong-gun (Lovers in Paris) all had to take a two-year hiatus from their careers to fulfill this obligation. Last October, 29-year-old pop sensation Rain (Jung Ji-hoon) began his 21-month army duty as well.

Lee Dong Wook had to put his acting career on hold for two years to fulfill his military service

What does this mean for Filipinos? It is essential to note that Philippines maintain a diplomatic relationship with North Korea through its embassy in Beijing, China. North Korea, meanwhile, is represented by a non-resident envoy based in Thailand. The Philippine Daily Inquirer reported last January 2011 that there are only eight Filipinos in NoKor, “all of whom are connected with United Nations agencies, international non-government organizations, and a foreign tobacco company.” The same news item added that there were no North Koreans “legally staying in the country” although unnamed sources from the Bureau of Immigrations claimed that they had “blended” with the local South Korean community.

Amidst all the hysteria surrounding the Aquino government’s reaction to NoKor’s upcoming missile launch, Philippine Star columnist Alex Magno, also a political science professor at the University of the Philippines, reminded Filipinos that “North Korea is not going to attack” and that the country is “merely in danger of catching some of the debris rockets discard as they move out to space.” He likened NoKor to a village fool whose only way to catch attention is to “act like mad dogs.”

For his part, Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile told that the government should leave the business of dealing with North Korea to “the big boys,” referring to United States, Japan, and South Korea. Enrile added that although the Philippines would not be happy to have a neighbor fire a missile in its direction, the country does not have any capability to prevent it. “What can we explode, fireworks?” he sarcastically asked. Events this morning show that indeed, an impoverished country like North Korea can only produce dumb missiles (Magno is right on this one), but still, there is nothing wrong with erring on the side of caution.

Must-reads:

North Korea’s Planned Rocket Launch Has SE Asia on Edge – from ABC News (US)

Philippines has 3 hours to react after North Korea rocket launch – from Philippine Daily Inquirer

Pinoys can sue North Korea for damages from rocket launch – from GMA News Online

Two UPD students, two different takes on the RH bill

Yesterday, the Philippine Daily Inquirer published my rebuttal to a letter written by Kiboy Sagrado Tabada. In a brief note published last April 2, Tabada criticized newly-elected university student leaders for pushing for the passage of the reproductive health (RH) bill. To better understand the events behind this tit-for-tat, please read my entry titled “Student leaders to solons: Decide on the RH bill before 2013 polls,” which I posted coincidentally yesterday as well.

Tabada is studying materials engineering in UP Diliman. He is a graduate of the Philippine Science High School, batch 2008. From 2009 to 2011, he listed himself as a coordinator of Campus Ministry ng UP. I culled these details from his Facebook page. Tabada is the convener of UP Against the RH Bill, according to this entry posted in ProLife Philippines. Curiously, he did not mention this in his letter to the Inquirer last week.

For transparency, let me tell you about myself. Aside from taking MA History in UP Diliman and maintaining this site, I do freelance writing – which means I am not affiliated with any media outlet (and NGO, for that matter) at present. I have written about human development topics since I was in college and late last year.  Kindly refer to the Some Self-Introduction section of my blog for more about me.

You can read Tabada’s letter at Inquirer.net. Click the screenshot below to enlarge.

A screenshot of Kiboy Sagrado Tabada's letter to the Philippine Daily Inquirer

Meanwhile, here’s my rejoinder to that piece. Keep in mind that the one I sent to the Inquirer is a slightly modified version of this one:

April 3, 2012

Ms Chato Garcellano

Opinion editor, Philippine Daily Inquirer

Chino Roces Avenue corner Yague and Mascardo Sts., Makati City, Philippines

 

Dear Ms Garcellano,

Numbers don’t lie, but it is prone to (deliberate) misinterpretation. I am referring to Kiboy Sagrado Tabada’s letter to the editor published in Inquirer.net last April 2. Tabada, a UP Diliman student like me, claimed that Heart Diño does not speak in behalf of the UP studentry since she was elected “by a mere 17.02 percent” of the students in the university student council (USC) polls last February. Tabada’s logic is flawed.

He did not take into account the voter’s turnout this 2012. Out of the over 23,000 students enrolled in the last semester, 11,345 or just 48.91% voted. To put things in perspective, only 10,024 students or 42.96% (totaling about 23,000 as well) voted in the 2009 USC elections. In that year, Titus Tan of the party KAISA won the chairpersonship with a margin of 1500 from his nearest competitor.

If less than half of UP students take part in the polls, how can a candidate realistically obtain the majority of votes of the entire student population? Does this mean Diño does not have the “strong mandate” necessary to lead UP Diliman students and represent their interests?

A screenshot of my rejoinder to Tabada's letter

In case Tabada does not know, garnering a majority vote is not a requirement to do this. And on another thought, I wonder how Tabada was able to claim that he speaks “for the youth who are against the RH bill and for the rest of (his) generation who do not know that it’s their future that’s at stake.” Is he a representative of the youth or, to borrow his own words, am I just listening to his personal views?

I happen to be present in the news conference where Diño, JC Tejano of the Student Council Alliance of the Philippines, and other student leaders reiterated their support for the reproductive health bill. They pointed out that reproductive health issues are indeed affecting the youth.

According to figures from the National Epidemiology Center, 704 or 30% of the 2,349 new cases of HIV reported in 2011 came from the 15-24 age group. That being said, I challenge Tabada to explain how “a lawmaker’s vote for the RH bill is a vote against the youth.” And, how exactly does he want student leaders to “speak (his) voice, too”? Is he implying that they should avoid taking a definite stand on this issue? It is foolish to imply that one person can represent the views of ALL of his/her constituents.

And while Tabada is challenging Diño‘s authority to speak on behalf of UP students because she didn’t get the majority of votes during the USC elections, more and more mothers are dying while giving birth, as Inquirer’s Jocelyn Uy reported last February 18. There are bigger issues to debate on, right? 

I am part of the youth, and I support the RH bill.

Mark Pere Madrona, MA History

www.rightonthemark.wordpress.com