PRESIDENT Rodrigo Duterte on Monday thanked the United States for providing technical assistance in the government’s battle against Islamist terrorists in Mindanao, after more than a year of cursing at Washington for criticizing his bloody campaign against illegal drugs.

While insisting he did not seek US help to end the siege in Marawi City, Duterte on Sunday softened his critical stance toward the country’s longstanding ally.

“My quarrel was not with the Americans, but that son-of-a-bitch [President Barrack] Obama,” Duterte said. “My quarrel was with the State Department and Obama who were reprimanding me in public as if I were a federal employee.”

Unlike Obama, President Donald Trump has been very supportive of his anti-illegal drug campaign, Duterte said.

Duterte thanked the American forces on the ground providing assistance to Filipino troops, albeit reluctantly.

“I have to be thankful. It’s already there,” he said.

Duterte said he can’t do anything about the pro-American sentiments of the military, many of whom were educated in US schools.

“This is really their sentiment, our soldiers are really pro-American, that I cannot deny,” the President said.

“Almost all officers will go to America to study... That’s why they have rapport and I cannot deny that,” he added.

Since Saturday, American Special Forces have provided help in aerial surveillance and targeting, electronic eavesdropping, communications assistance and training.

The military confirmed that while US forces were providing technical assistance, they did not join in the fighting.

Duterte, who came to power a year ago, has taken a very hostile stance towards Washington and vowed to abrogate various agreements signed between the two countries, including the Mutual Defense Treaty, the Visiting Forces Agreement and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement and announced Manila’s “separation” from Washington and shift towards Beijing and Moscow—all because of their criticism of his anti-drug campaign.

Washington’s envoy to Manila, Sung Kim said the US will continue to provide support to the military in the battle against extremists, but declined to say what kind of help his government was providing.

“I don’t think it is appropriate [to reveal] technical details of what we are providing,” he said when asked if US troops have been deployed to Marawi.

US Secretary of state Rex Tillerson said that his country “proudly stands” with the Philippines in its fight against terrorism in Marawi City, Mindanao.

In a statement, Tillerson said that the American government admired the resilience and strength of Filipino people in times of conflict.

“The United States proudly stands with the Philippines as a longstanding ally, especially as the country confronts challenges associated with terrorism and extremism, including recent attacks in Marawi City and elsewhere,” Tillerson said.

“We admire the resilience and strength of Filipino people in battling adversity and building a more prosperous and secure future,” he added.

The United States’ statement came days after its embassy confirmed that the US forces arrived in the Marawi to crush the Maute Group, through the Philippine government’s request.

Lt. Col. Jo-Ar Herrera, 1st Infantry Battalion spokesman, said the assistance of the US was limited to technical support.

Tillerson said the American government will honor the 50-year US-Philippine alliance.

“On this special day, we honor the enduring US-Philippine alliance, built on our shared democratic values, growing commerce, and strong people-to-people ties,” he said.

“On behalf of President Trump and the American people, congratulations and best wishes to the people of the Republic of the Philippines as you commemorate your 119th Independence Day on June 12,” he added.

Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana said Monday the help of the US troops in the Marawi siege was vital to providing troops with information about precise movements on the ground.

“What General [Carlito] Galves did was, he brought three people with equipment that can help with the surveillance of the movements of the enemy not only in Marawi but the entire Lanao Del Sur,” Lorenzana said.

The Defense chief added that the central bank and the Finance department were already tracing the source of the P72.9 million in cash and checks found in a Maute house in Marawi City.

The military’s engineering brigade, he also said, was on standby to help residents of the city rebuild their houses and government facilities.

He said he has already recommended a draft executive order to rehabilitate Marawi City at an initial cost of P10 billion.

Leftist groups on Monday criticized the involvement of American troops in the Marawi City siege.

The peasant group Kilusang Magbubukid ng Pilipinas said the United States had a long history of instigating proxy wars.

“Wherever there is US involvement and presence of US troops, there is war and destruction, the group said in a statement.

The Gabriela Women’s Party also denounced the involvement of US troops, saying this showed the continued subservience to foreign interests.

“A country that gave rise to terrorists and launched wars in many parts of the globe should have no business in crushing terrorists and in supposedly restoring peace in Marawi City. US troops must be immediately kicked out,” Gabriela Party-List Rep. Emmi De Jesus said.

Earlier, Bayan Muna Rep. Carlos Isagani Zarate also questioned the presence of US troops in Marawi City.

“The question is did the US troops know beforehand that there would be a Maute/ISIS attack but allowed it to happen as payback for President Duterte’s anti-US rhetoric?” Zarate said.

“Are they now just offering their support because it is almost over and they want to again have a pretext for an anti-terror campaign in the Philippines?” Zarate said. “We must always be wary of US support.” With Sara Susanne D. Fabunan, Sandy Araneta and Maricel Cruz

“NEVER again” was what most Filipinos who are old enough to remember Martial Law under Ferdinand Marcos would have replied if you asked them about the chances of martial law being declared ever again. Now it has happened. The problem is that the term martial law has always been used as a synonym, a euphemism to refer to the Marcos dictatorship. And make no mistake, it was a dictatorship. The fact that the younger generation seems to know little about it and some of the older generation still refer to Ferdinand Marcos as the best President the country has ever had is a problem of what the Germans call Vergangenheitsbewältigung, that is, properly dealing with the past. The German lexicon defines Vergangenheitsbewältigung as “public debate within a country on a problematic period of its recent history”. Sadly, Vergangenheitsbewältigung has never happened here. This is why people get confused about the term martial law. Is it the beginning of a new dictatorship? Is it just a legal instrument, a toothless tiger?

This time, martial law is different. The authors of the 1987 Constitution decided to have built-in safeguards, still providing for martial law per se, but restraining its powers decisively. What’s different now from the martial law of Ferdinand Marcos? First of all, martial law can be revoked by Congress. Section 18, Article VII of the 1987 Constitution states that the President may “in case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it” suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the country under martial law. Also, the martial law period or suspension of the writ of habeas corpus shall not exceed 60 days. This is meant to safeguard individual freedom against arbitrary state action. Under a state of martial law the executive branch cannot override the function of the judiciary and legislative branches of the government.

In the light of martial law returning to the Philippines (or at least to a significant part of the national territory), how and why is it supposed to help the country? The declaration of martial law for Mindanao was an immediate response of President Duterte after the outbreak of violence in Marawi City. After years of downplaying the nature of armed groups–and this refers explicitly to the groups that actively oppose peace in Mindanao—it has become evident that this is not only about rebellion or separatism. Terrorism has found its way across the borders. And yes, this terrorism and the groups involved in it do not only idolize the so-called Islamic State (IS), these groups consider themselves a franchise of it. Even though the Abu Sayyaf Group and the Maute Group have repeatedly pledged their allegiance to the Islamic State, authorities and analysts have labeled them as mere bandits for the longest time. In fairness to those not granting those groups the status of extremist terrorists, the activities of the Abu Sayyaf have been characterized by kidnap-for-ransom acts rather than terrorist attacks for years. But terrorism knows no borders in a globalized world. Therefore, Abu Sayyaf and Maute constitute attractive targets for mergers and acquisitions in the eyes of bigger, more dangerous groups like Jemaah Islamiyah, or even the Islamic State. So, is the Maute Group that is behind the siege of Marawi City now truly a part of the Islamic State or just a violent group of bandits? The truth is probably somewhere in between. But the ongoing siege shows that they have capacities that go beyond those of bandits. And the siege itself shows that the Maute Group is following textbook IS procedures. With the declaration of martial law in Mindanao, the President has made it clear that the threat we are facing is not just a group of bandits.

The current revelations appear critical considering its possible implications on the peace process in Muslim Mindanao. The history of this process has shown major groups committing themselves to peace and autonomy while radical breakaway groups continue the path of violence. The Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Moro National Liberation Front are willing to work together with the government to achieve lasting peace and self-determination for the Muslims of Mindanao. The actions of radical groups like the Abu Sayyaf or Maute are what political scientists call spoilers to the peace process. The people of Mindanao have suffered enormously for decades in their pursuit of self-determination. Whether it will be federalism or a truly autonomous region, the goal is still within reach. But it needs continuing efforts from all sides, the national government, the major groups in Mindanao and civil society, to keep this goal alive. All sides have to accept and realize that the fight against spoilers of peace cannot be a military action only. Whether extremist groups can be defeated in one week or in one decade, the most important task for government and civil society is to invest in preventing violent extremism which will destroy the breeding ground for radicalism. Both Christianity and Islam are religions that are based on the core value of human dignity. A paramount prerequisite for a dignified life is peace. With peace within reach, Muslim Mindanao can start prospering into a region that provides the people with the economic means for a dignified life also. Only if this path to development remains open, will the young and marginalized see that violence and extremism are not a choice.

Some 300 lawyers urged the Supreme Court (SC) on Tuesday to compel the Senate and the House of Representatives to convene and vote jointly on President Rodrigo Duterte’s Proclamation 216 declaring martial law and suspending the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus in Mindanao, following the siege in Marawi City.

The petitioners were led by jailed Sen. Leila de Lima, former senator Rene Saguisag, former Commission on Elections chairman Christian Monsod, former Commission on Human Rights chief Loretta Ann Rosales, former Philippine Health Insurance Corp. president Alexander Padilla, and Rene Gorospe.

Named as respondents were Senate President Aquilino Pimentel 3rd and Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez.

Ex-solicitor general Florin Hilbay, also one of the petitioners, said Congress has the power to revoke martial law and the “constitutional obligation to have a joint session to exercise that power both to revoke or to affirm,” for transparency and accountability and to protect the people from “potential abuses.”

“They cannot exercise the power to revoke by silence or by resolution by separate houses,” he added.

The petitioners asked the Supreme Court to intervene because “the Senate and the House of Representatives have unlawfully neglected the performance of an act, which the 1987 Constitution specifically enjoins as a duty resulting from their office.”

Article VII, Section 18 of the Constitution, they argued, is clear in stating that Congress has the “mandatory obligation” to convene in joint session.

They branded as “absurd” arguments raised by House leaders that Congress should only convene to revoke the proclamation.

“Petitioners seek nothing more than compliance with a minimum procedural fidelity to the mechanisms enshrined in the Constitution meant to prevent abuse of power and to ensure popular mandate in the exercise of the Presidential martial law powers,” the petitioners said.

Oral arguments set

On Monday, Representatives Edcel Lagman, Tomasito Villarin, Gary Alejano, Emmanuel Billones and Teodoro Baguilat Jr. filed a 31-page petition questioning the basis of Proclamation 216 before the high tribunal.

The Supreme Court set oral arguments at 10 a.m. on June 13, 14, and 15, at the New Session Hall in Manila.

It told the Office of the Solicitor General, for and in behalf of the respondents, to comment on the petition not later than June 12 at 12 noon. It also ordered the docket receiving section to be open on June 12, Independence Day, a national holiday.

Counsels for the parties were required to attend a preliminary conference on June 12 at 2 p.m., and submit their respective memoranda not later than June 19 at 2 p.m.

Lagman warned Solicitor General Jose Calida against belittling the seven lawmakers who filed the petition.

Lagman, the lead petitioner, was responding to Calida’s tirade that they were rabble-rousers and psychotics.

“If Calida has not read the 30-page petition or has nothing yet to say traversing its merits, he should hold his tongue and study the case seriously. The petitioners’ well-reasoned petition contains legal and factual verities, not psychotic perorations,” Lagman, a lawyer, said in a statement.

“The congressional records of the petitioners verily show that they are vigilant and hardworking lawmakers who vigorously protect the independence of the legislature, safeguard the civil liberties of the people and actively participate in the debates on important legislation,” Lagman said.

Lagman also scored Presidential Chief Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo for branding the petition as black propaganda, saying the statement must be disregarded as a “stereotypical reaction by apologists of the President.”

Senate Majority Leader Vicente Sotto 3rd claimed the petitions were courting a constitutional crisis.

He pointed out that Congress had decided against a joint session and there was a possibility the legislature would disregard the high tribunal.

At least 12 senators have rejected the resolution filed by members of the Senate minority bloc asking Congress to convene in joint session and deliberate on the declaration of martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus.

But Pimentel said the court should step in as referee and settle differing interpretations of the constitutional provisions on martial rule.

“Let us be guided by the Supreme Court pronouncement on the issue,” the Senate chief said.

THE death from asphyxiation of 37 people, triggered by the attack by a lone gunman at the Resorts World Manila Friday, is our worst fire tragedy since 1996 when a conflagration at a disco called Ozone killed 162 people.

It has severely tarnished the country’s image, with reports, mainly pursued by the online news site Rappler and the Doha-based TV al-Jazeera that it was a “lone-wolf” attack by an Islamic State (IS) adherent. Occurring on the heels of the attack on Marawi City by verified IS-linked gunmen, that fake news has had some traction.

If the lone gunman was a jihadist, he certainly wasn’t an adherent of the belief which motivates many such terrorists: that if the mujahid kills an infidel and is killed, he will be rewarded in Paradise with 72 virgins. He shot with his assault rifle not a single person in the hour that he roamed the casino complex unchallenged. Instead, he fired his gun at the ceiling, to scare people away, the usual behavior of bank robbers.

Very strangely, he poured gasoline on the baccarat tables and set them on fire. Is it too far-fetched to believe that he was really pouring his anger on the gambling table where he lost his shirt? This is a strange jihadist, who knew where the casino kept its gambling chips, forced its doors open, and stole the most expensive gambling chips, equivalent to P130 million. I don’t think he believed he could cash the chips in Jannah, Islam’s notion of an after-life heaven.

The attacker was shot, and retreated to a hotel room. It’s not too far-fetched to imagine the following scenario: He realized how stupid his plot to rob the casino was, and decided to kill himself, setting himself on fire with the gasoline he used to scorch the gambling tables, in order to conceal his identity, and save his family from humiliation. Before he died, he certainly didn’t know that there were 37 people killed in the wake of the fire he started.

Professional journalists do not just believe any report they come across. The news site Rappler.com, in its article entitled “ISIS claims Resorts World Manila,” said this was according to the “communique of the ISIS East Asia division”. The news site didn’t find it odd that the “communique” reported that the IS man ”killed and wounded nearly 100 Christian combatants”. The 37 killed at Resorts World of course weren’t combatants, and none of them was even a security guard. They were casino employees and guests, many of whom probably were merely fleeing the heat of the city.

‘Abu Khair al Luzonee’

Rappler’s editor-in-chief Maria Ressa claimed the gunman was an IS adherent named “Abu Khair al Luzonee”. “Al-Luzonee,” as in Luzon island? The lady didn’t get it. (A more credible IS news site is Almasdar News, which even backed up its reports that it was IS-linked groups that attacked Marawi with photos of the fighters, one even showing them raising their rifles atop a destroyed armored personnel carrier.)

That the Resorts World attack was by an IS militant was obviously the kind of fake news one reads every day in Facebook. These over-eager IS social-media activists though are devious: How can the killed gunman deny that he was an IS fighter?

However, the claim that it was an IS attack, is a huge distraction from the task of implementing our laws, and getting justice for the 37 victims, as it serves to cover up Resorts World Manila’s negligence that could even be criminal.

The most obvious instance of negligence is Resorts Worlds’ total failure to stop a man in combat attire with an assault rifle, and carrying two huge sinister-looking military-style duffel bags.. This is a especially huge lapse in security, considering that the metropolis has been on a high security alert status in the wake of reports that the IS-linked groups would attempt an attack in Manila to distract government forces away from Marawi.

The CCTV footage showed the gunman bypassed the metal detector at the entrance. After walking with him asking him to go through the metal detector, the female security guard ran away terrified. What’s the use of a security at the entrances if armed men cannot be stopped there?

Resorts World Manila chief security officer Armeen Gomez claimed that “security personnel attempted to stop him, but the assailant managed to overpower the security.” The CCTV footage shows that he is lying. There was only one security guard at the entrance, an unarmed female. The assailant “overpowered” the female security guard by just staring at her.

Entrances to malls and five-star hotels have typically at least four security people, routinely with sniffer guard dogs. Resorts World had only one unarmed security guard, a female. Was it scrimping on costs?

Sprinkler system?

The attacker doused four gaming tables with gasoline and lit them. Resorts World Manila’s chief operating officer Stephen Reilly claimed that the hotel-casino’s “fire safety equipment worked as it should do and the sprinkler system activated.” The CCTV footage showed no water or fire-extinguishing chemicals showering on the game room nor any other place in the casino complex.

Reilly made an asinine statement: “The issue we actually had was with smoke, not with fire. Unfortunately, those victims suffered from smoke inhalation. There is proper ventilation within the property. Unfortunately, a lot of it was a degree of panic.” Isn’t the function of sprinklers to put out the fire, and with no more fire, there is no more smoke? The 37 victims died because they panicked?

If there were sprinklers, how could smoke have spread so much as to reach even toilets far from the fire, where several victims were found? How on earth were the 37 people killed unable to exit the casino?

“You’re fired today. Get out of the service. You do not contradict your own government.”

–President Duterte to DDB Chairman Benjamin Reyes (GMA News)

AND with that unceremonious public shaming, another one “bites the dust”. What brought this about was the bureaucrat openly contradicting his boss in public, pegging the number of illegal drug users in the Philippines to a mere 1.8 million—in contrast to the 4 million used by the Deegong in justifying his war on drugs.

The first ever on record on a similar scenario ended too in tragedy circa 70 B.C. A messenger was sent to Tigranes, King of Armenia, warning him of the coming of Roman General Lucullus. Tigranes didn’t like the message and had the messenger’s head cut off. No right information was ever given Tigranes again. He eventually lost the war.

The analogy ends here but the lesson portrayed may wreak havoc with the way the President’s men will communicate with him and with the public henceforth. This incident opens a plethora of questions that puts under scrutiny the way the Office of the President is run and even how the personality of the President shapes the culture of his bureaucracy. The limitation of the length of this article prevents the writer from discussing the issue thoroughly. But let me refer the readers to a 3-part series that I wrote in this column on January 26, February, 2 and February 9, 2017 on “Controversial Alter-Egos”.

Bureaucrats and members of the Cabinet may now be very careful about double -checking their data when presenting them to the big boss or to the public. Public policy when proclaimed by vested authority impacts on the lives of the citizenry. As an instrument for government to better the lives of its people, its principal purpose, it demands no less than precise data upon which a strategy is shaped.

This is where the confusion started. In December last year, Rappler’s Maria Ressa asked the President on his use of 3 million to 4 million drug addicts in his speeches rather than the 1.8 million DDB estimate. PRRD only said that most of drug addiction cases are not reported anyway. Another reason is that he trusts the estimates from PDEA rather than from the DDB. Perhaps, this is to give flesh to his claim of the wide extent of drug use and abuse in the country.

A parallel issue is what is the role of the Dangerous Drug Board (DDB) in contrast with the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA). Under its mandate, the DDB “…makes policies, strategies and programs on drug prevention and control”, under the office of the President. The PDEA “…is the lead anti-drug law enforcement agency, responsible for preventing, investigation, and combating any dangerous drugs…”. Further to this, “PDEA is the implementing arm of the DDB”. Both are under the Office of the President.

If it is the task of DDB to shape strategies and policies that will curtail drug usage in the country, it is only appropriate that they make use of accurate and timely data in every assumption and future projections. What is unfortunate is that the President himself has already been using data contradictory to one proclaimed by the DDB. Right or wrong, the President’s pronouncement has precedence and a subaltern has no business contradicting the President in public. If he stands by his figures, then it is the alter-ego’s duty to tell the facts even if it contravenes presidential directives, but a private approach could have been prudent on Reyes’ part.

But a nagging issue hovers in the periphery and it is not about the 1.8 million or 4.7 million drug addicts. How did they come up with such statistics? Data are essential in planning as it gives policy makers a grasp of the context and extent of the problems; fashioning solutions through timely and sustainable programs; allowing the implementers to carry out their responsibilities and achieve their goals properly and effectively. Inaccurate or unavailable information are prone to gloss over strategic gaps that could be fatal to programs on the ground.

The conflicting number of drug addicts espoused by the two agencies under the Office of the President is further complicated by definition of terms. Both have failed to differentiate between drug addiction, drug usage and drug pushing, thereby distorting the numbers submitted to the President and the public. In the process, the lower number belies the oft-repeated position of PRRD that the country is in the grip of unnamed drug lords and on the way to becoming some South American type of narco-state. This resulted in a fatal consequence to the DDB chairman, the bearer of bad numbers.

This whole sordid episode on the dismissal from office of the bearer of bad news; tantamount to the proverbial “killing of the messenger,” could have, I’m afraid, an unintended result, a chilling effect on bureaucrats tasked to gather and proffer data to the presidency. Will they in future willingly stand by their facts and risk public shaming or will they trim them to the liking of the Deegong?

To all CDP dues paying members of good standing; volunteer members; Young Centrist Union (YCU); Centrist Democratic Sectors; and Centrist Democrats all over the country.

MANILA IS NOT OUR ENEMY! We have allies in Metro-Manila, Luzon and Visayas as we have enemies in Mindanao.

Our main enemy is the oppressive perverted Unitary System we are trying to replace with a new governance paradigm Parliamentary-Federal through the revision of the 1987 Constitution.

THE DEEGONG'S Martial Law declaration is not the problem. In his best lights as our President, Martial Law is his solution in his appreciation of the recent dangerous events in Marawi. And the incident in Marawi is not even the main issue. It is just the trigger to contain the growing threat of ISIS and other terrorist groups. The DEEGONG understands he has to contain this in Mindanao before it spreads to Visayas and Manila. God help us if the malls in Manila are hit. Then Manila may want Martial Law declared too!

LET'S STAY RIGHT IN THIS GAME! LET'S KEEP OUR EYES ON THE POLITICAL BALL!

Lito Monico C. Lorenzana Chairman, CDP

IN May 2016, the Deegong ran with just a handful of PDP-Laban stalwarts; the current Senate President, the House Speaker and one or two nondescript candidates for Congress. But three weeks prior to the President-elect’s assumption to power, the LP and some members of mother political parties jumped ship to the PDP- Laban’s “super-majority”. Perhaps there was nothing wrong with this from the standpoint of Filipino politicians and their brand of traditional politics. But it is stretching credulity to a shameful level when one particular politician paraphrased President Quezon and proclaimed: “My loyalty to my party ends when my loyalty to my country begins…” Sheer hypocrisy!

He would have salvaged a shred of self-respect if he just simply declared that “I want to be with the winning brand for self-interest”. This “political butterfly” phenomenon has been the norm in modern Philippine politics. In this context, changing political parties is akin to chameleons changing their skin color perfunctorily, and politicians possessed with the temerity to stay affiliated to a political party out of ideology and values are rare. They are an endangered species.

In 1986, when Cory won, the Marcos KBL was decimated, and though Cory did not believe in a political party – which was tragic – they gravitated to her. In 1992, Fidel Ramos whose Lakas-Tao party reportedly “could all get into one taxi” built a “rainbow coalition” of NUCD-CMD-Lakas and remained in power up to GMA’s administration. That party was dominant until PNoy took power in 2010 and decimated the NUCD-CMD-Lakas, giving rise to the new Liberal Party. Today, we have a “not so new kid in the block”— PDP Laban—with more than 100 LP members swearing allegiance to the principles and ideology of this “left-of-center” party.

Last May 10, Ansaruddin Adiong of Lanao del Sur’s 1st district, Winston Castelo of Quezon City’s 2nd district, Geraldine Roman of Bataan 1st district, Nancy Catamco of North Cotabato’s 2nd district and Alfred Vargas of Quezon City’s 5th district took their oath before Speaker Pantaleon Alvarez, the PDP-Laban secretary general.

Along with them were Rodolfo Albano III of Isabela 1st district, Abdulmunir Arbison of Sulu 2nd district, Scott Davies Lanete of Masbate 3rd district, Xavier Jesus Romualdo of Camiguin and Divina Grace Yu of Zamboanga del Sur 1st district. Last Wednesday, two former LP members Vice Mayor Joy Belmonte of Quezon City and Councilor Gian Sotto took their oaths before the PDP-Laban president, Senate President Koko Pimentel.

With this recent defection, the emasculation of the once mighty Liberal Party and its minor cohorts is complete, reducing the remnants to a pathetic few and leaving their political carcasses strewn all over the place.

I bring these episodes and names up not to disparage these politicians but to emphasize that the political party system in the Philippines as the backbone of a truly democratic governance is severely defective, leaving the elected leaders perhaps with very little choice but to defect for personal survival.

Almost all of the political parties in the Philippines are structured in a manner that hew closely to the centuries-old patronage system. The patrons who provide the funds make almost all of the political party decisions, especially with regard to those slated to run for elective positions; the central/executive committees are usually manned by their allies and subalterns; and there are no real offices and party activities year-round except during election periods.

Invariably, political parties do not have a uniquely consistent set of beliefs that distinguishes one from the other; at most they proffer slogans and motherhood statements that pass for political doctrines. Their political agenda are predictably directed towards the preservation of elective members’ prerogatives, ensuring the continued accumulation of pelf and privileges for themselves and their families. Individual programs and family interest, perforce, have precedence over that of a political party’s collective appreciation of society’s needs. And once they are gifted the privilege to govern, public policies are instituted on the fly emanating from the framework of traditional political practices, their comprehension of national issues seen subjectively through the prism of personal and family interests, thus perpetuating the existing flawed political institutions.

We need immediate reforms in our political party system even prior to PRRD’s plans to shift to a federal parliamentary system. This can be achieved through the passing of the proposed Political Party Development and Financing Act (a bill that has been pending in Congress for several years) which will:

1) Penalize “turncoatism” (or the switching of political parties, “balimbing”, “political butterfly”);

2) Enforce transparent mechanisms providing and regulating campaign financing to eliminate graft, corruption, and patronage (corporate & individual contributions); and

3) Institute strict state subsidy that will professionalize political parties by supporting their political education and campaign initiatives.

In more modern developed countries, political parties are the “sine qua non” of a vibrant democracy. They are not vessels for personal electoral survival and perpetuation in power of political families. They exist because the citizenry, the wellspring and final arbiter of political power, have diverse issues and aspirations that need to be articulated and amplified to a wider political domain. Political parties must provide them real choices.

President Rodrigo Duterte declared martial law in Mindanao late Tuesday, hours after government troops battled members of a local terror group in Marawi City.

The attack in the southern city prompted the President to cut short his visit in Russia.

Foreign Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano, who is with the President in Moscow, said he will stay to sign several agreements.

The decision to return to Manila as soon as possible was made after Duterte declared martial law in Mindanao following fierce clashes between government troops and members of the Maute group in Marawi City.

“I have spoken to my counterpart here in Moscow and have explained the situation and they understand that the security of the Filipino people especially in Marawi and the whole Mindanao is a priority. They understand that the presence of President Duterte is essential in the Philippines but I will be staying behind. The agreements will be signed and we will have a bilateral meeting with the Honorable Minister of Foreign Affairs Lavrov,” Cayetano said in a news briefing.

Cayetano said Duterte “feels that he is needed in Manila as soon as possible” and Palace officials will announce when the President will be flying home.

Duterte was scheduled to be in Russia until May 25.

Soldiers and policemen battled dozens of gunmen protecting one of the world’s most wanted Islamic militants in Marawi City on Tuesday, authorities said.

At least one policeman was killed in the hunt for Isnilon Hapilon, a leader of the Abu Sayyaf Group, according to military chief of staff General Eduardo Ano.

The gunmen attacked a hospital during the clashes, Ano said.

“Please advise people to stay inside their houses. We will clear the area,” he said.

He said the fighting began when police and troops raided a house on Tuesday afternoon where Hapilon, the subject of a US State Department bounty of $5 million, was believed to be hiding.

This triggered fierce clashes throughout the afternoon and into the evening, with Ano estimating there were about 50 gunmen. Photos posted on social media by Marawi residents showed the gunmen walking through the streets of Basak, a Marawi suburb of about 1,700 people.

A woman who asked not to be named said that she saw about 10 armed men take up positions at the gate of a government hospital. Police clashed with the gunmen near the hospital, leaving one officer seriously wounded and one of the extremists dead, she added. The military said it could not confirm the militant’s death. Ano said eight security personnel had been injured in the clashes. LEENA CHUA WITH AFP

The Centrist Democracy Political Institute (CDPI) will be holding its 1st CDPI Summer Youth Leaders Dialogue on the 23rd of May 2017 at Hotel Vicente, Davao City.

It will be a one-day event participated by student-leaders from various colleges and universities in Davao City. The goal of the youth leaders’ dialogue is to gather ideas and understand different perspectives in the topics of federalism, democracy and youth leadership in the midst of the present political structures.

Furthermore, it is the general aim of this activity to engage potential youth leaders in enhancing their knowledge in the field of governance and politics and to raise their awareness and commitment to take on leadership roles.

Miss Rochelle C. Sanaga and Jessalyn C. Jayag will present the CDPI as an organization, what they do and what the organization is all about. Mr. Ted Lorenzo A. Lago and Joshua Adrian S. Cericos will present the role of the youth in the process of federalism.

There will be presentations of outputs and round-table discussions every after each presentation to cater questions and to deepen the participants’ understanding of the topics.

MY Mocha is just a little bit faultless; well, almost perfect. My wife Sylvia hates it when I show interest for Mocha. Last week, we celebrated our 44th wedding anniversary. On our way home from dinner, I had this urge to bring my Mocha home with us. She surprisingly agreed.

The closest from home where I can get my Mocha, also called mochachi or mocaccino, is the Blugre Café at the MTS, not Starbucks. My wife hates it when I sip this chocolate-flavored variant of a caffè latte. She says I’m already fat and recommends just plain Americano.

This column however is about the other Mocha. She has been raked over the coals lately that I thought I’d dive right in and try to put things in perspective.

I have never met Mocha Uson. I don’t have any personal knowledge of what she is other than what I read in social media. I don’t follow her in Facebook or twitter. I don’t even have a twitter account. So, this column is not a paean to her.

But I just hate it when the so-called literati and educated look down on people’s newfound status. I find certain commonalities with the young lady. We are both children of murdered fathers—both public servants whose assailants were never brought to justice. In some ways, I sympathize with this hardworking girl.

Mocha Uson’s stint early this year as a member of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) drew a lot of reactions from netizens, fellow celebrities, and even from some government officials. But her appointment this week as assistant secretary really stirred a hornet’s nest. Offhand, there is no question as to the President’s prerogative to choose his people. The Deegong has already gone on record that he did it “…in payment of his debt of gratitude for her earlier support for his presidential bid…”; and by now we should know that PRRD gives premium to such loyalty.

PRRD appreciates the kind of expertise Mocha possesses which, by the way, no one among the President’s people can provide. The former “sexy dancer” as she is disparagingly referred to by the snooty, has broken through the traditional choices made by past presidents and that made her entry to the PRRD government blunt and unwelcomed. But she is closer to the female version of the Deegong, a person with common sense who understands the language of the masses, and all in all a political outsider with potential for public service.

The accusation of her lack of education is hogwash. She graduated from a leading Manila university and has a bachelor’s degree. We have a lot of highly educated public servants who have been caught with their sticky fingers in the government coffers. Enough of high-class education!

Political blogging draws networks together in a community that tackles as many diverse societal issues as there are bloggers. They can be very idiosyncratic and unavoidably readers are influenced by the partisanship of some very articulate ones. But this is the whole point of blogging where the readership is allowed instant intimacies fundamental to social media interaction in contrast to traditional media where interface with readers is staid and confined to “letters to the editor”. Bloggers like Mocha Uson inject subjectivity into the political conversation shaping arguments condensed from opinions of the readers.

Her political blog has been a popular online hub mainly because she speaks and writes the language not only of the millennials but of the ordinary person on the street. She is astute enough to strategically position herself on an issue extracting every ounce of advantage. When petitions demanded to close down her Facebook page, she plastered online her photo, gagged with a silver masking tape. She defiantly telegraphed the message that she will not be silenced defending the persona and the interests of the Deegong.

Her Palace appointment, however, is a double-edged one. As a high official of the Presidential Communications Operations Office (PCOO) she has been entrusted the sensitive job of communicating government programs and official presidential messages to the citizenry and even beyond through social media. Along with it, of course, comes the privileges, honors and recognition. Therein lies her difficulty. As a private blogger, she was free to say and print what was in her mind. She has been accused of concocting fake news in defense of the Deegong and like her sponsor, was also liberal with language often considered inappropriate.

There is a code of conduct that covers government officials (RA 6713) and she could be made liable for transgressions now that she has morphed from a private person to an official government employee. Her strength as a private blogger could be a bane as a government-paid publicist. Henceforth, she will be put under a microscope of severe political scrutiny not only by the detractors of the Deegong but even his own allies perhaps resentful of the ascendancy of one who was once a member of the “dancing entourage” of the presidential campaign.

And she could be vulnerable defending the President’s programs from the predictable attacks by traditional media. She can no longer label print media as “presstitutes” when they become critical of DU30s policies, especially in matters which the Deegong considers his very own personal advocacy—human rights and illegal drugs. But with reportedly about 5 million followers in her Facebook page, she has her back covered. So, let Mocha be Mocha!