Centrist Democracy Political Institute - Items filtered by date: April 2026
Wednesday, 14 June 2017 11:21
Memo to DU30: Try to outsmart IS/Mautes, not everybody else
NEARLY everybody I have spoken to would like to know why President Rodrigo Duterte failed to show up at the 119th Independence Day rites at Rizal Park on Monday, after cancelling the traditional vin d’honneur for diplomats earlier. As many, if not more, would like to know why, aside from raising the Philippine flag in front of a shell-shocked building in Marawi, the military, backed by the US Special Forces, failed to make good its promise to “liberate” that city from the Islamic State (IS)-backed Mautes.
It is no mortal offense for the President to miss an early morning flag-raising ceremony, especially if he had been running around from a military camp in Cagayan de Oro to Villamor Air Base in Pasay City the day before; but a simple official explanation, not several conflicting ones, would have helped. It took Foreign Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano to say the President was completely fogged out after an exhausting all-night schedule that had taken him from Mindanao to Manila to pay his respects to some combatants who had fallen in the siege of Marawi.
This earned more respect than the lame statement from an unnamed Malacañang official saying the President was “not feeling well.” But why did it have to come from Cayetano? This was the job of the press secretary, if there was a functioning press secretary, or the presidential spokesman if he was up to it. But all Mr. Ernesto Abella, the spokesman, could say was that the President would not be able to come to the Luneta, without giving any reason for it. It was a cop-out, amounting to a dereliction of duty.
Counting the chicks prematurely
As for the “promised” dislodging of the IS/Maute militants from their dugout on the 119th anniversary of our Independence, that was subject to a host of variables, and could not be predicted with mathematical accuracy. There was no dishonor in missing the self-imposed deadline, which most people decided not to take seriously anyway; it only reminds us not to count the chicks before the eggs are hatched. It also tells us that the Marawi situation has become far more complicated than previously thought.
DU30 says Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the IS leader in Syria and Iraq, had specifically ordered the Marawi attack, and a good number of IS-trained foreign jihadists, more than previously reported, have joined the Mautes. These reportedly include at least 40 Indonesian fighters, belonging to Jemaah Ansharut Daulah (JAD), and led by the notorious terrorist Aman Abdurraham, and anywhere from six to 28 Malaysians, including Dr. Mahmud bin Ahmad, also known as Dr. HandzalahApiyah, the alleged original “brains” behind the IS faction in Southeast Asia. Mahmud is reportedly being positioned to succeed “Emir” IsnilonHapilon, the current leader of Dawlah-ul Islamiyah Wilayat al-Mashriq (the Eastern Province of the Islamic State), should he get killed in the current fighting.
Mahmud, 39, is a former lecturer in Islamic studies at the University of Malaya, who had trained with the al-Qaida in Afghanistan in the 1990s, after studying at the Islamabad Islamic University in Pakistan. He is known to have recruited Malaysia’s first suicide bomber, known as Ahmad Tarmimi Malki. In 2014, he came to Basilan as part of a four-man NGO team, gave some money to a local orphanage and a madrasah, left for Malaysia and then returned to Basilan, where he trained with the Abu Sayyaf Group on terror bombings, etc. He has since been linked to at least two terror attacks on the military. One of his three companions has been killed, but he continues to operate with the other two. In November 2015, he reportedly started to form the IS faction in Southeast Asia, which is now known as Dawlah-ul Islamiyah Wilayat al-Mashriq (the Eastern Province of the IS).
The presence of foreign jihadists tends to confirm reports that the IS has decided to make the Philippines, rather than Malaysia or Indonesia, despite their much larger Muslim population, the Southeast Asian center of militant Islamism. It seems safe to assume that the IS leadership is determined to supply the Eastern province with fresh recruits coming from Malaysia, Indonesia and as far as Yemen and Sudan, should the military, supported by US Special Forces, succeed in wiping out the Mautes. However, observers are amazed that despite the large number of troops that have been poured into the operation, the government has not been able to evict the militants from their lair. After 21 days of fighting, the Mautes have not run out of ammunition or food and other provisions, either. Obviously, the supply routes have not been cut.
The Mautes could be wiped out, but—
One assessment suggests the situation could change in another two weeks, and the military could overrun the Mautes’ position, despite their well-placed snipers. The Maute brothers, who are leading their group could finally get killed (amending earlier reports of their premature deaths), Hapilon himself could get killed, and his presumed successor Dr. Mahmud himself could get killed; but even if all these things happened, the IS pool of militants may not be easily exhausted.
Fujuri Indama, Hapilon’s deputy in Basilan, could make a bid for the leadership; or the Ansar al-Kilapa Philippines in Sarangani, South Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat whose leader “Tokboy” was killed last year, or the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters in Maguindanao could seek to replace the Mautes. The IS, which is far more dangerous than the Mautes, could migrate to Lanao del Norte, or to the NPA stronghold in Compostela Valley and Davao del Norte and form an alliance with the NPA. Under the direction of IS international, more fighters could come from Malaysia and Indonesia and even from Africa.
The mass media report that at least 191 Mautes have been killed, suggesting a very high kill ratio against the Mautes. Our own sources from the ground, quoting alleged figures from the Operation Center, claim that 138 Mautes have been killed, as against 58 government troops, three policemen and 21 civilians. The same sources claim 91 government troops wounded, four policemen, and 124 civilians, and an unknown figure for the Mautes. Whether we are talking of killed or wounded, the risk is high that some civilian casualties may be mistaken for Mautes.
Many support, but only the US involved
China and some other countries have expressed support for the anti-IS operation, but so far only the United States has decided to get involved. The US presence is a source of encouragement to many Filipinos, and a source of distress to some others. It has raised hopes that the DU30 government would have an extra arm, like Russia and the US in the case of Syria, in its fight against the Islamist militants. On the other hand, it has also raised fears that as in Syria, it could give a foreign power an excuse to get involved in its internal politics. Both Russia and the US are helping Syria fight the IS, but the US would like to see President Bashar al-Assad out while Russia says the Syrian people alone should decide whether or not Assad should remain their president.
The US presence, according to some street protesters, has unduly “internationalized” the conflict, as though it were, in fact, a purely domestic conflict. In reality, it is a global and civilizational conflict: what the IS wants to impose on Western civilization is a World Islamist Government, against which Russian President Vladimir Putin, for one, has correctly proposed a coalition of all governments, working as one under international law to reject and evict the extremist menace.
Unfortunately, DU30 is now caught in his own rhetoric. He has threatened to “separate” his government militarily and economically from the US, and align it with China and Russia “against the world.” Since last October, when he announced this position during a state visit to China, he has initiated some loans and military purchases from Beijing and Moscow, but he has done nothing to disturb the Philippines’ security and defense agreements with the US.
These include the Philippine-US Mutual Defense Treaty, which provides that an armed attack against either party within the treaty area would constitute a direct and immediate danger to the security of the other, and would be promptly responded to by that party, according to its constitutional processes; the Visiting Forces Agreement, which allows US forces to make short-term visits to the Philippines to conduct joint military exercises, among others; and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which allows the US to station its forces, equipment and facilities inside Philippine military bases.
With the Marawi crisis prompting DU30 to proclaim martial law and suspend the privilege of habeas corpus all over Mindanao while he was visiting Moscow on May 23, 2017, the military was compelled to call on the US for help and the latter responded by sending in its Special Forces. DU30 has tried to dissociate himself from this episode, by trying to make it appear that he had nothing to do with the request to the US. This of course is plain nonsense. Having declared martial law, despite the constitutional questions that have been raised against it before the Supreme Court, he has put the whole of Mindanao under his military control, and no foreign military personnel could possibly participate in the anti-IS campaign there without his consent.
Nation’s survival, not DU30’s wounded pride
But the real problem confronting DU30 and the rest of us has nothing to do with his wounded pride. The survival of our predominantly Catholic Christian nation with its mainstream Muslim minority, in the face of this global Islamist menace, takes precedence over all political agendas. If DU30 believes martial law is the solution, he must comply with the Constitution to make it a completely valid and legitimate constitutional exercise, whose only purpose is to defeat the IS, rather than to give him unaccountable and illegitimate power.
Since we cannot win this battle alone, we must try to win the support of all. In Mindanao, we should mobilize the various Moro groups in order to solidify and strengthen the mainstream Islamic community which alone can provide the antidote to extremism. Within Southeast Asia, we should try to win Indonesia and Malaysia to our side and organize our own regional coalition against this global challenge. In all this, DU30 must try to lead by following the rule of law and the Constitution, instead of trying to outsmart the legal order and everybody else.
It is no mortal offense for the President to miss an early morning flag-raising ceremony, especially if he had been running around from a military camp in Cagayan de Oro to Villamor Air Base in Pasay City the day before; but a simple official explanation, not several conflicting ones, would have helped. It took Foreign Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano to say the President was completely fogged out after an exhausting all-night schedule that had taken him from Mindanao to Manila to pay his respects to some combatants who had fallen in the siege of Marawi.
This earned more respect than the lame statement from an unnamed Malacañang official saying the President was “not feeling well.” But why did it have to come from Cayetano? This was the job of the press secretary, if there was a functioning press secretary, or the presidential spokesman if he was up to it. But all Mr. Ernesto Abella, the spokesman, could say was that the President would not be able to come to the Luneta, without giving any reason for it. It was a cop-out, amounting to a dereliction of duty.
Counting the chicks prematurely
As for the “promised” dislodging of the IS/Maute militants from their dugout on the 119th anniversary of our Independence, that was subject to a host of variables, and could not be predicted with mathematical accuracy. There was no dishonor in missing the self-imposed deadline, which most people decided not to take seriously anyway; it only reminds us not to count the chicks before the eggs are hatched. It also tells us that the Marawi situation has become far more complicated than previously thought.
DU30 says Abu Bakr al-Baghdadi, the IS leader in Syria and Iraq, had specifically ordered the Marawi attack, and a good number of IS-trained foreign jihadists, more than previously reported, have joined the Mautes. These reportedly include at least 40 Indonesian fighters, belonging to Jemaah Ansharut Daulah (JAD), and led by the notorious terrorist Aman Abdurraham, and anywhere from six to 28 Malaysians, including Dr. Mahmud bin Ahmad, also known as Dr. HandzalahApiyah, the alleged original “brains” behind the IS faction in Southeast Asia. Mahmud is reportedly being positioned to succeed “Emir” IsnilonHapilon, the current leader of Dawlah-ul Islamiyah Wilayat al-Mashriq (the Eastern Province of the Islamic State), should he get killed in the current fighting.
Mahmud, 39, is a former lecturer in Islamic studies at the University of Malaya, who had trained with the al-Qaida in Afghanistan in the 1990s, after studying at the Islamabad Islamic University in Pakistan. He is known to have recruited Malaysia’s first suicide bomber, known as Ahmad Tarmimi Malki. In 2014, he came to Basilan as part of a four-man NGO team, gave some money to a local orphanage and a madrasah, left for Malaysia and then returned to Basilan, where he trained with the Abu Sayyaf Group on terror bombings, etc. He has since been linked to at least two terror attacks on the military. One of his three companions has been killed, but he continues to operate with the other two. In November 2015, he reportedly started to form the IS faction in Southeast Asia, which is now known as Dawlah-ul Islamiyah Wilayat al-Mashriq (the Eastern Province of the IS).
The presence of foreign jihadists tends to confirm reports that the IS has decided to make the Philippines, rather than Malaysia or Indonesia, despite their much larger Muslim population, the Southeast Asian center of militant Islamism. It seems safe to assume that the IS leadership is determined to supply the Eastern province with fresh recruits coming from Malaysia, Indonesia and as far as Yemen and Sudan, should the military, supported by US Special Forces, succeed in wiping out the Mautes. However, observers are amazed that despite the large number of troops that have been poured into the operation, the government has not been able to evict the militants from their lair. After 21 days of fighting, the Mautes have not run out of ammunition or food and other provisions, either. Obviously, the supply routes have not been cut.
The Mautes could be wiped out, but—
One assessment suggests the situation could change in another two weeks, and the military could overrun the Mautes’ position, despite their well-placed snipers. The Maute brothers, who are leading their group could finally get killed (amending earlier reports of their premature deaths), Hapilon himself could get killed, and his presumed successor Dr. Mahmud himself could get killed; but even if all these things happened, the IS pool of militants may not be easily exhausted.
Fujuri Indama, Hapilon’s deputy in Basilan, could make a bid for the leadership; or the Ansar al-Kilapa Philippines in Sarangani, South Cotabato and Sultan Kudarat whose leader “Tokboy” was killed last year, or the Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters in Maguindanao could seek to replace the Mautes. The IS, which is far more dangerous than the Mautes, could migrate to Lanao del Norte, or to the NPA stronghold in Compostela Valley and Davao del Norte and form an alliance with the NPA. Under the direction of IS international, more fighters could come from Malaysia and Indonesia and even from Africa.
The mass media report that at least 191 Mautes have been killed, suggesting a very high kill ratio against the Mautes. Our own sources from the ground, quoting alleged figures from the Operation Center, claim that 138 Mautes have been killed, as against 58 government troops, three policemen and 21 civilians. The same sources claim 91 government troops wounded, four policemen, and 124 civilians, and an unknown figure for the Mautes. Whether we are talking of killed or wounded, the risk is high that some civilian casualties may be mistaken for Mautes.
Many support, but only the US involved
China and some other countries have expressed support for the anti-IS operation, but so far only the United States has decided to get involved. The US presence is a source of encouragement to many Filipinos, and a source of distress to some others. It has raised hopes that the DU30 government would have an extra arm, like Russia and the US in the case of Syria, in its fight against the Islamist militants. On the other hand, it has also raised fears that as in Syria, it could give a foreign power an excuse to get involved in its internal politics. Both Russia and the US are helping Syria fight the IS, but the US would like to see President Bashar al-Assad out while Russia says the Syrian people alone should decide whether or not Assad should remain their president.
The US presence, according to some street protesters, has unduly “internationalized” the conflict, as though it were, in fact, a purely domestic conflict. In reality, it is a global and civilizational conflict: what the IS wants to impose on Western civilization is a World Islamist Government, against which Russian President Vladimir Putin, for one, has correctly proposed a coalition of all governments, working as one under international law to reject and evict the extremist menace.
Unfortunately, DU30 is now caught in his own rhetoric. He has threatened to “separate” his government militarily and economically from the US, and align it with China and Russia “against the world.” Since last October, when he announced this position during a state visit to China, he has initiated some loans and military purchases from Beijing and Moscow, but he has done nothing to disturb the Philippines’ security and defense agreements with the US.
These include the Philippine-US Mutual Defense Treaty, which provides that an armed attack against either party within the treaty area would constitute a direct and immediate danger to the security of the other, and would be promptly responded to by that party, according to its constitutional processes; the Visiting Forces Agreement, which allows US forces to make short-term visits to the Philippines to conduct joint military exercises, among others; and the Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement, which allows the US to station its forces, equipment and facilities inside Philippine military bases.
With the Marawi crisis prompting DU30 to proclaim martial law and suspend the privilege of habeas corpus all over Mindanao while he was visiting Moscow on May 23, 2017, the military was compelled to call on the US for help and the latter responded by sending in its Special Forces. DU30 has tried to dissociate himself from this episode, by trying to make it appear that he had nothing to do with the request to the US. This of course is plain nonsense. Having declared martial law, despite the constitutional questions that have been raised against it before the Supreme Court, he has put the whole of Mindanao under his military control, and no foreign military personnel could possibly participate in the anti-IS campaign there without his consent.
Nation’s survival, not DU30’s wounded pride
But the real problem confronting DU30 and the rest of us has nothing to do with his wounded pride. The survival of our predominantly Catholic Christian nation with its mainstream Muslim minority, in the face of this global Islamist menace, takes precedence over all political agendas. If DU30 believes martial law is the solution, he must comply with the Constitution to make it a completely valid and legitimate constitutional exercise, whose only purpose is to defeat the IS, rather than to give him unaccountable and illegitimate power.
Since we cannot win this battle alone, we must try to win the support of all. In Mindanao, we should mobilize the various Moro groups in order to solidify and strengthen the mainstream Islamic community which alone can provide the antidote to extremism. Within Southeast Asia, we should try to win Indonesia and Malaysia to our side and organize our own regional coalition against this global challenge. In all this, DU30 must try to lead by following the rule of law and the Constitution, instead of trying to outsmart the legal order and everybody else.
Published in
Commentaries
Tuesday, 13 June 2017 10:28
Patriots
THERE are days when being a Filipino is oftentimes a hard act to do. Particularly on days when you want to be a law-abiding citizen and you see some undisciplined lout throw trash just anywhere, or enter a one-way street, or try to get one over another, to get ahead, to be first. But take a Filipino out of the country and just like that, he will assimilate and behave accordingly, you’d think that discipline was part of his DNA.
Put that Filipino in public office and you see a different person altogether. In a clip of three years, you see him/her developing certain habits that see public office as personal property. The rent-seeking is excessive, and they continue with such behavior without remorse even when we already had the PDAF/DAP chapter in our character-building moment. Today, you see or hear some saying, “it is our money” and “we worked hard for it.” That is the sad tale of pork politics, despite a Duterte winning the presidency. Can you consider them patriots?
Consider a vehicle availing of valet parking on a Sunday with a plate saying “Office of Presidential Protocol” in front, and the back plate having the seal of the Republic in some contraption of power. Mind you, this vehicle really went for overkill with a sticker of the PSG. Is he a patriot?
How about newly appointed officials trying to make a fast one since their heyday may soon be over due to “health reasons or ouster,” are they patriots? Is corruption a character-defining event in public service that very few come out clean?
A patriot is “a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.” A patriot is a “person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the government.” A patriot is a nationalist, clear as day. But is a nationalist a patriot?
Can a patriot be for country and rue about martial rule? If one incites people to disobey the duly constituted government, are you a patriot? Can one be a patriot while destroying one’s country through coups, rebellion, terrorism and such crimes as defined under Republic Act 9372, or the Human Security Act of 2007, and the Revised Penal Code? Can journalists be patriotic even as they churn out false news or alternative truths? Or as they release a classified document to foreign media? Or act as a stringer and spin news in support of a certain goal? Are elected representatives of the people patriotic as they continue to plan the ouster of a duly elected President? Or when a cordon has been formed to run the day-to-day affairs of government because the elected leader chooses when he wants to govern? Or when individuals, learning the art and science of insidious propaganda for the past six years, using black and gray varieties, would today use ALT tactics with critical agencies and start issuing irresponsible contrasts just to paint a negative scenario against the incumbent, invoking free speech and democracy’s mantle as a cover for their manipulation?
Are people who allow the growth of terrorist cells in the country patriots? Take the case of Marawi City, which would not have been in such a bad state today if the terrorist cells had not been allowed to take root. Foxholes, heavy armaments, millions of cash and the like are combustible combinations that were allowed to develop, unlike in Inabanga, Bohol, where the community waved the red flag upon seeing motor boats landing in their area and decisively coordinated with their barangay and local police to dampen an explosive crisis. As it was close to Holy Week in Bohol then, in Marawi it was right smack in the middle of Ramadan. Would a patriot be religiously tolerant?
Since PRRD assumed the presidency, nationalism has become felt more. As others taunt Digong as being a “genius and great strategist” in the light of the recent New York Times and Forbes hammering our President very unfairly, we sometimes wonder if the framing done locally was induced by employment and tinted prisms, meant to project just one view. Nationalism in the Age of Digong is most welcome but nurturing and securing it will take a full term.
Nationalism is “loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially, a sense of national consciousness, exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations.” The Filipino consciousness is there but it will take more years for it to be the thread that binds the nation. This, despite 16 million voting for, standing by and defending Digong. They continue to stay engaged. A rarity in Philippine politics.
And then there are the 58 soldiers who died serving the flag, all patriots. They died because of country and duty. They died because they loved the country. How many of us are willing to do so for a chance to be a patriot? Talk is cheap, lives are not. Think about it.
Put that Filipino in public office and you see a different person altogether. In a clip of three years, you see him/her developing certain habits that see public office as personal property. The rent-seeking is excessive, and they continue with such behavior without remorse even when we already had the PDAF/DAP chapter in our character-building moment. Today, you see or hear some saying, “it is our money” and “we worked hard for it.” That is the sad tale of pork politics, despite a Duterte winning the presidency. Can you consider them patriots?
Consider a vehicle availing of valet parking on a Sunday with a plate saying “Office of Presidential Protocol” in front, and the back plate having the seal of the Republic in some contraption of power. Mind you, this vehicle really went for overkill with a sticker of the PSG. Is he a patriot?
How about newly appointed officials trying to make a fast one since their heyday may soon be over due to “health reasons or ouster,” are they patriots? Is corruption a character-defining event in public service that very few come out clean?
A patriot is “a person who loves, supports, and defends his or her country and its interests with devotion.” A patriot is a “person who regards himself or herself as a defender, especially of individual rights, against presumed interference by the government.” A patriot is a nationalist, clear as day. But is a nationalist a patriot?
Can a patriot be for country and rue about martial rule? If one incites people to disobey the duly constituted government, are you a patriot? Can one be a patriot while destroying one’s country through coups, rebellion, terrorism and such crimes as defined under Republic Act 9372, or the Human Security Act of 2007, and the Revised Penal Code? Can journalists be patriotic even as they churn out false news or alternative truths? Or as they release a classified document to foreign media? Or act as a stringer and spin news in support of a certain goal? Are elected representatives of the people patriotic as they continue to plan the ouster of a duly elected President? Or when a cordon has been formed to run the day-to-day affairs of government because the elected leader chooses when he wants to govern? Or when individuals, learning the art and science of insidious propaganda for the past six years, using black and gray varieties, would today use ALT tactics with critical agencies and start issuing irresponsible contrasts just to paint a negative scenario against the incumbent, invoking free speech and democracy’s mantle as a cover for their manipulation?
Are people who allow the growth of terrorist cells in the country patriots? Take the case of Marawi City, which would not have been in such a bad state today if the terrorist cells had not been allowed to take root. Foxholes, heavy armaments, millions of cash and the like are combustible combinations that were allowed to develop, unlike in Inabanga, Bohol, where the community waved the red flag upon seeing motor boats landing in their area and decisively coordinated with their barangay and local police to dampen an explosive crisis. As it was close to Holy Week in Bohol then, in Marawi it was right smack in the middle of Ramadan. Would a patriot be religiously tolerant?
Since PRRD assumed the presidency, nationalism has become felt more. As others taunt Digong as being a “genius and great strategist” in the light of the recent New York Times and Forbes hammering our President very unfairly, we sometimes wonder if the framing done locally was induced by employment and tinted prisms, meant to project just one view. Nationalism in the Age of Digong is most welcome but nurturing and securing it will take a full term.
Nationalism is “loyalty and devotion to a nation; especially, a sense of national consciousness, exalting one nation above all others and placing primary emphasis on promotion of its culture and interests as opposed to those of other nations.” The Filipino consciousness is there but it will take more years for it to be the thread that binds the nation. This, despite 16 million voting for, standing by and defending Digong. They continue to stay engaged. A rarity in Philippine politics.
And then there are the 58 soldiers who died serving the flag, all patriots. They died because of country and duty. They died because they loved the country. How many of us are willing to do so for a chance to be a patriot? Talk is cheap, lives are not. Think about it.
Published in
Commentaries
Tuesday, 13 June 2017 10:21
Duterte to US: Thank you
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
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
Published in
News
Friday, 09 June 2017 10:51
The (martial) art of peace
“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.
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.
Published in
Commentaries
Wednesday, 07 June 2017 11:42
300 lawyers seek joint session of Congress
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 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.
Published in
News
Monday, 05 June 2017 10:51
Claims that IS attacked Resorts World covering up management negligence
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?
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?
Published in
Commentaries
Thursday, 01 June 2017 12:04
Shooting the messenger
“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?
–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?
Published in
LML Polettiques
Friday, 26 May 2017 10:41
MANILA IS NOT OUR ENEMY!
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
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
Published in
LML Polettiques
Thursday, 25 May 2017 08:50
Political chameleons
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.
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.
Published in
LML Polettiques
Wednesday, 24 May 2017 09:39
UPDATE 2: Duterte declares martial law, to cut short Russia visit
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 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
Published in
News
Categories
Archives
Comments
-
This is really interesting, You're a very skilled blogger. I've…
Written by Merrill
on Thursday, 24 March 2016 12:35
Incompetence Kills
(LML Polettiques)
Newsletter Subscription
PARTNERS:
Contact Us
+63 (82)222-2771 Davao
+63 (02) 470-9076 Pasig
+63 (02) 470-9076 Pasig
3rd floor Metro Lifestyle Complex Building,
F. Torres Street Corner Jacinto Extension,
Davao City, 8000 Philippines
F. Torres Street Corner Jacinto Extension,
Davao City, 8000 Philippines
5F 501 Taipan Place Don F. Ortigas
Jr. Road Ortigas Center, Pasig City
Jr. Road Ortigas Center, Pasig City
This email address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it.
