Centrist Democracy Political Institute - Items filtered by date: June 2025
Wednesday, 22 February 2017 09:56
Martial law or revolutionary govt?
CONTRARY to what appeared on this page in my last piece, “Thou shall not kill” is the Fifth Commandment rather than the Sixth, according to the Roman Catholic (Augustinian) rendering of the Ten Commandments. It is the Sixth, according the Talmudic version of the same, as used by Hellenistic Jews, Greek Orthodox and Protestants except Lutherans. For this Catholic layman, therefore, it was a blooper pure and simple. My sincerest apologies.
But perhaps some unseen power was trying to tell us something. The degradation of human sexuality, which is the subject of the Sixth Commandment (“Thou shalt not commit adultery”), has become endemic to what Pope Francis calls our throwaway culture. It is now globally asserted, beginning in Donald Trump’s US Christian constituency, that the destruction of the family and marriage is potentially more costly than the massive loss of lives in wars, terrorist attacks and insurgencies. This deserves a separate discussion though.
Quarreling with the press
For now, my concern is the intensity of self-inflicted problems that keep piling up against the seven-month-old Duterte regime. In the US, Donald Trump’s latest fight appears to be with the “dishonest media” which he accuses of not telling the public the truth about his accomplishments. Here, Malacañang seems determined to replicate Trump’s attack on the media with accusations of its own. On Monday, Communications Secretary Martin Andanar accused members of the Senate media of receiving a $1,000 payoff, apiece, to cover the press conference of SPO3 Arthur Lascañas, the latest self-confessed hitman after one Edgar Matobato to accuse President Rodrigo Duterte of having been involved in the killings and bombing of mosques in 1993 when he was still mayor of Davao City.
The implication is that the press conference was a criminal activity that did not deserve to see the light of day, and the Senate media had to be bribed to cover it. The Senate media group has denounced the accusation as completely baseless and slanderous, and Andanar has offered no “smoking gun” to support his charges. The Lascañas accusations are one thing, the conflict with the Senate media is another. Whatever the truth or untruth of the accusations, Andanar’s unsubstantiated accusation puts DU30 in deep sh***t with the press or at least part of the press. This is most unfortunate. Even in the worst adversarial situation between the government and the media, charges like this should be avoided. Mutual respect should be preserved.
With the summary drug killings, Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV’s charges of hidden ill-gotten wealth against the President and his family, the move to railroad in Congress the death penalty, lower the age of criminal liability to nine years old, and limit the number of children per family to the outrage of the public, and questions about DU30’s state of health all piling up on Malacañang’s plate, it is easy to understand why Andanar would rather suppress any further accusations against the President.
But suppressing the news is not the best way of dealing with the problem. The best way to deal with it is to have a convincing response to every accusation hurled by one’s accusers or critics. It is a simple case of making sure one’s narrative is more believable than the accusations and is in fact believed. Since Congress cannot investigate a sitting President, unless and until he has been impeached, what matters is the public believes what the President says.
On the part of Andanar and his colleagues, all that is needed is for them not to try to talk the way DU30 talks, but to try to win the press to their side. If anything, they should try to persuade the President to moderate himself and be more open to his critics. He could learn a few tricks from some of his predecessors, like former President Fidel V. Ramos.
FVR’s critique
Earlier on Monday, Ramos, in an interview at the Samahang Plaridel at the Manila Hotel, gave a running commentary on DU30’s tepid performance on many fronts—his inability to initiate meaningful reform after seven months in office, his inability to sufficiently honor the memory of EDSA 1986, his inability to sustain the peace initiative with the CPP/NPA/NDF, his questionable handling of the nation’s historic ties with old allies in the name of new alliances, his unexplained prolonged disappearances from public view which have provoked speculations about his state of health.
Ramos is a known supporter whom DU30 publicly thanked during his inaugural address for “making him President.” He also served briefly as “special envoy” who facilitated DU30’s diplomatic contacts with China, preparatory to his state visit to Beijing, where he threatened to separate militarily and economically from the US and align himself with China and Russia “against the world.” He has tried to be moderate and gentle in his critique, but being an ally, his gentlest criticism has an impact on the President.
In his interview, Ramos was critical of the reported Malacañang decision to keep the 31st EDSA anniversary celebration (from February 22 to 25) subdued, giving no special recognition to the role of its defenders, both living and dead. For Ramos, who with then Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile led the military mutiny against President Ferdinand Marcos, EDSA was one of the watershed moments in the Philippines’ struggle as a sovereign and self-respecting state, comparable to the first cry of revolution at Pugad Lawin in 1896 and the defense of Bataan and Corregidor in 1942, which halted the Japanese invasion of Australia and the islands of the South Pacific. For him it is unforgivable that the full meaning of EDSA should be withheld from the present and future generations of Filipinos—for reasons known only to those in charge at this point.
A lot of loose talk
Indeed, it is difficult to understand why while Malacañang is trying to discourage large crowds from the EDSA celebration, Cabinet Secretary and NDF Vice Chairman Leoncio Evasco Jr.’s “Kilusang Pagbabago”, the communist structure meant to become the principal organ of DU30’s bureaucracy, is said to be mobilizing a mammoth assembly to “Occupy Rizal Park” on February 25.
Some are inclined to speculate that DU30 fears certain elements could make use of the EDSA anniversary as an excuse to mount a massive destabilization effort against him. Some in fact go so far as suggest that a “coup” against DU30 could be attempted.
I view all this as irresponsible talk. The anti-DU30 voices (forces, if you like) are certainly increasing, but I think it is quite foolish to imagine that even if they succeed in forcing DU30 out of office, they have a ready and credible alternative whom the people would welcome and support. Certainly not a military successor, or a Vice President Leni Robredo, whose legitimacy is being questioned before the Supreme Court. I would like to believe that most anti-DU30 critics would like to see DU30 reform and ultimately succeed as a democratic President. But the greater danger, to my mind, is the hidden agenda of Secretary Jun Evasco and his Kilusang Pagbabago and Masa Masid. If their plan is to “Occupy Rizal Park,” while some “yellow groupings” march on EDSA against DU30, what are the chances that at some point the two forces would clash?
And what happens if and when that happens? Shall we have martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or a revolutionary government? Can DU30 afford it?
But perhaps some unseen power was trying to tell us something. The degradation of human sexuality, which is the subject of the Sixth Commandment (“Thou shalt not commit adultery”), has become endemic to what Pope Francis calls our throwaway culture. It is now globally asserted, beginning in Donald Trump’s US Christian constituency, that the destruction of the family and marriage is potentially more costly than the massive loss of lives in wars, terrorist attacks and insurgencies. This deserves a separate discussion though.
Quarreling with the press
For now, my concern is the intensity of self-inflicted problems that keep piling up against the seven-month-old Duterte regime. In the US, Donald Trump’s latest fight appears to be with the “dishonest media” which he accuses of not telling the public the truth about his accomplishments. Here, Malacañang seems determined to replicate Trump’s attack on the media with accusations of its own. On Monday, Communications Secretary Martin Andanar accused members of the Senate media of receiving a $1,000 payoff, apiece, to cover the press conference of SPO3 Arthur Lascañas, the latest self-confessed hitman after one Edgar Matobato to accuse President Rodrigo Duterte of having been involved in the killings and bombing of mosques in 1993 when he was still mayor of Davao City.
The implication is that the press conference was a criminal activity that did not deserve to see the light of day, and the Senate media had to be bribed to cover it. The Senate media group has denounced the accusation as completely baseless and slanderous, and Andanar has offered no “smoking gun” to support his charges. The Lascañas accusations are one thing, the conflict with the Senate media is another. Whatever the truth or untruth of the accusations, Andanar’s unsubstantiated accusation puts DU30 in deep sh***t with the press or at least part of the press. This is most unfortunate. Even in the worst adversarial situation between the government and the media, charges like this should be avoided. Mutual respect should be preserved.
With the summary drug killings, Sen. Antonio Trillanes IV’s charges of hidden ill-gotten wealth against the President and his family, the move to railroad in Congress the death penalty, lower the age of criminal liability to nine years old, and limit the number of children per family to the outrage of the public, and questions about DU30’s state of health all piling up on Malacañang’s plate, it is easy to understand why Andanar would rather suppress any further accusations against the President.
But suppressing the news is not the best way of dealing with the problem. The best way to deal with it is to have a convincing response to every accusation hurled by one’s accusers or critics. It is a simple case of making sure one’s narrative is more believable than the accusations and is in fact believed. Since Congress cannot investigate a sitting President, unless and until he has been impeached, what matters is the public believes what the President says.
On the part of Andanar and his colleagues, all that is needed is for them not to try to talk the way DU30 talks, but to try to win the press to their side. If anything, they should try to persuade the President to moderate himself and be more open to his critics. He could learn a few tricks from some of his predecessors, like former President Fidel V. Ramos.
FVR’s critique
Earlier on Monday, Ramos, in an interview at the Samahang Plaridel at the Manila Hotel, gave a running commentary on DU30’s tepid performance on many fronts—his inability to initiate meaningful reform after seven months in office, his inability to sufficiently honor the memory of EDSA 1986, his inability to sustain the peace initiative with the CPP/NPA/NDF, his questionable handling of the nation’s historic ties with old allies in the name of new alliances, his unexplained prolonged disappearances from public view which have provoked speculations about his state of health.
Ramos is a known supporter whom DU30 publicly thanked during his inaugural address for “making him President.” He also served briefly as “special envoy” who facilitated DU30’s diplomatic contacts with China, preparatory to his state visit to Beijing, where he threatened to separate militarily and economically from the US and align himself with China and Russia “against the world.” He has tried to be moderate and gentle in his critique, but being an ally, his gentlest criticism has an impact on the President.
In his interview, Ramos was critical of the reported Malacañang decision to keep the 31st EDSA anniversary celebration (from February 22 to 25) subdued, giving no special recognition to the role of its defenders, both living and dead. For Ramos, who with then Defense Secretary Juan Ponce Enrile led the military mutiny against President Ferdinand Marcos, EDSA was one of the watershed moments in the Philippines’ struggle as a sovereign and self-respecting state, comparable to the first cry of revolution at Pugad Lawin in 1896 and the defense of Bataan and Corregidor in 1942, which halted the Japanese invasion of Australia and the islands of the South Pacific. For him it is unforgivable that the full meaning of EDSA should be withheld from the present and future generations of Filipinos—for reasons known only to those in charge at this point.
A lot of loose talk
Indeed, it is difficult to understand why while Malacañang is trying to discourage large crowds from the EDSA celebration, Cabinet Secretary and NDF Vice Chairman Leoncio Evasco Jr.’s “Kilusang Pagbabago”, the communist structure meant to become the principal organ of DU30’s bureaucracy, is said to be mobilizing a mammoth assembly to “Occupy Rizal Park” on February 25.
Some are inclined to speculate that DU30 fears certain elements could make use of the EDSA anniversary as an excuse to mount a massive destabilization effort against him. Some in fact go so far as suggest that a “coup” against DU30 could be attempted.
I view all this as irresponsible talk. The anti-DU30 voices (forces, if you like) are certainly increasing, but I think it is quite foolish to imagine that even if they succeed in forcing DU30 out of office, they have a ready and credible alternative whom the people would welcome and support. Certainly not a military successor, or a Vice President Leni Robredo, whose legitimacy is being questioned before the Supreme Court. I would like to believe that most anti-DU30 critics would like to see DU30 reform and ultimately succeed as a democratic President. But the greater danger, to my mind, is the hidden agenda of Secretary Jun Evasco and his Kilusang Pagbabago and Masa Masid. If their plan is to “Occupy Rizal Park,” while some “yellow groupings” march on EDSA against DU30, what are the chances that at some point the two forces would clash?
And what happens if and when that happens? Shall we have martial law and suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, or a revolutionary government? Can DU30 afford it?
Published in
Commentaries
Wednesday, 22 February 2017 09:43
NEDA rolls out new Phl Development Plan
MANILA, Philippines - The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) has come up with a new medium-term economic blueprint for the country, targeting an upper-middle class economy status with a per capita income of $5,000 by 2022.
The Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2017-2022 is the first six-year plan to be anchored on a national long-term vision – the Ambisyon Natin 2040. It also takes off from the Duterte administration’s 10-point socioeconomic agenda.
The new PDP contains seven main parts, which include an overview of the economy, development challenges that lie ahead, and development strategies.
As identified in the 2017-2022 PDP, the Philippine economy is expected to grow seven to eight percent in the medium term to a more inclusive pace.
Poverty rate is targeted to decline from the present rate of 21.6 percent to 14 percent in 2022, while poverty incidence in rural areas is expected to decrease from 30 percent in 2015 to 20 percent in 2022.
Under the new economic blueprint, the government targets to reduce unemployment rate from the current 5.5 percent to between three to five percent by 2022.
Included among the targets are various socioeconomic goals such as attaining higher trust in government and society, having more resilient individuals and communities, and a greater drive for innovation among businesses.
“We want the Philippines to be an upper-middle income country by 2022. With the right policies and with mutual trust between government and the citizenry, this is very possible,” said Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia, who is also director general of NEDA.
The new development plan in supported by three main pillars: Malasakit which aims to regain people’s trust in public institutions. Strategies under this pillar include promoting awareness of anti-corruption measures, improving the productivity of the public sector, implementing regulatory reforms, increasing access to legal aid, pursuing corrections reform, and promoting culture-sensitive governance and development.
The second pillar is Pagbabago, which aims to reduce inequality by increasing income opportunities.
Pernia said under this pillar, the government would be placing emphasis on creating more opportunities in the value chain of the agriculture sector.
“Opportunities in agriculture will be expanded. We will increase our presence in the global market, and we will streamline bureaucratic processes for both local and foreign businesses,” said NEDA deputy director general Rosemarie Edillon.
Also under this pillar, the government will pursue strategies such as achieving quality and accessible basic education for all, enhancing disaster risk reduction and management mechanisms and adopting universal social protection.
The third pillar, Patuloy na Pag-unlad concentrates on sustaining economic growth by maximixing the demographic dividend and advancing science, technology and innovation.
“Strategies under this pillar will ensure maintaining macroeconomic and financial stability, and observing fiscal prudence while the tax system is being reformed into a much simpler, fair and equitable one,” said NEDA, “A strategic trade policy will also be implemented alongside measures to promote competition and establish a level playing field.”
The Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2017-2022 is the first six-year plan to be anchored on a national long-term vision – the Ambisyon Natin 2040. It also takes off from the Duterte administration’s 10-point socioeconomic agenda.
The new PDP contains seven main parts, which include an overview of the economy, development challenges that lie ahead, and development strategies.
As identified in the 2017-2022 PDP, the Philippine economy is expected to grow seven to eight percent in the medium term to a more inclusive pace.
Poverty rate is targeted to decline from the present rate of 21.6 percent to 14 percent in 2022, while poverty incidence in rural areas is expected to decrease from 30 percent in 2015 to 20 percent in 2022.
Under the new economic blueprint, the government targets to reduce unemployment rate from the current 5.5 percent to between three to five percent by 2022.
Included among the targets are various socioeconomic goals such as attaining higher trust in government and society, having more resilient individuals and communities, and a greater drive for innovation among businesses.
“We want the Philippines to be an upper-middle income country by 2022. With the right policies and with mutual trust between government and the citizenry, this is very possible,” said Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia, who is also director general of NEDA.
The new development plan in supported by three main pillars: Malasakit which aims to regain people’s trust in public institutions. Strategies under this pillar include promoting awareness of anti-corruption measures, improving the productivity of the public sector, implementing regulatory reforms, increasing access to legal aid, pursuing corrections reform, and promoting culture-sensitive governance and development.
The second pillar is Pagbabago, which aims to reduce inequality by increasing income opportunities.
Pernia said under this pillar, the government would be placing emphasis on creating more opportunities in the value chain of the agriculture sector.
“Opportunities in agriculture will be expanded. We will increase our presence in the global market, and we will streamline bureaucratic processes for both local and foreign businesses,” said NEDA deputy director general Rosemarie Edillon.
Also under this pillar, the government will pursue strategies such as achieving quality and accessible basic education for all, enhancing disaster risk reduction and management mechanisms and adopting universal social protection.
The third pillar, Patuloy na Pag-unlad concentrates on sustaining economic growth by maximixing the demographic dividend and advancing science, technology and innovation.
“Strategies under this pillar will ensure maintaining macroeconomic and financial stability, and observing fiscal prudence while the tax system is being reformed into a much simpler, fair and equitable one,” said NEDA, “A strategic trade policy will also be implemented alongside measures to promote competition and establish a level playing field.”
Published in
News
Tuesday, 21 February 2017 09:55
‘Enough House votes to pass death penalty bill’
A lawmaker on Monday claimed the ruling coalition has mustered enough votes to pass the death penalty bill in the House of Representatives.
Rep. Stephen Paduano of Abang Lingkod party-list made the statement ahead of the caucus of administration lawmakers in connection with the plenary debates on the death penalty measure.
“The ‘yes’ vote [for death penalty]in the House has now the [majority]number. I’m a member of the Visayan bloc. Last week we had a meeting. Out of 41 congressmen out of the Visayas bloc that’s headed by Congressman Benitez, only six of us will vote ‘no,’” Paduano told reporters.
He was referring to Rep. Alfredo Benitez of Negros Occidental.
“For the party-list coalition [of which I am also a member], more than half of the 40 of us will vote ‘yes,’” Paduano added.
The Super Majority bloc in the House of Representatives is composed of the ruling PDP-Laban, the Nationalist People’s Coalition, Nacionalista Party, National Unity Party, Liberal Party, Lakas-CMD and the party-list coalition.
Paduano, however, won’t vote for death penalty even if he belongs to the Super Majority.
“I believe everyone deserves a second chance. That is my faith and that is my religious belief. I believe congressmen should vote based on their conscience in this issue,” Paduano said.
Buhay party-list Rep. Jose Atienza, who opposes the bill, said the House should not be a stamp pad of the administration and should not blindly follow the orders of the President.
In a forum in Manila, he said the bill would only benefit the well-off as the justice system is stacked against the poor.
“As long as the criminal justice system is corrupt, we will not be able to fight effectively, criminality with death penalty,” he said.
Death for plunder, treason, drugs
The proposed death penalty bill will be amended to spare convicts of drug possession from execution, House Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas of Ilocos Norte said Monday.
Fariñas made the announcement after the caucus of administration lawmakers.
Crimes punishable by death penalty will include plunder, treason, and drug-related offenses except drug possession.
“Upon our agreement, we will introduce an amendatory bill. We removed [drug]possession,” Fariñas told reporters.
Under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, a drug possession offense is punishable by life imprisonment to death when a person carries: 10 grams or more of opium; 10 grams or more of morphine; 10 grams or more of heroin; 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride; 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”; 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil; 500 grams or more of marijuana; 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or “ecstasy”, paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives..
If a person carries illegal drugs less than the threshold, the punishment is reduced to life imprisonment.
The death penalty bill was abolished in 2006 during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. This meant that the harshest punishment for drug possession offenses, regardless of the amount of drugs in possession of, is lifetime imprisonment.
Explaining the limited scope of the bill, Fariñas said: “The compelling reasons are present in these crimes. We should send a message to our people that giving aid and comfort to the enemy (treason) is a heinous crime which would merit death penalty, depending on the circumstances.”
“We also maintained that plunder is covered [in the bill],” Fariñas added.
However, he did not specify the threshold on when drug possession would be upgraded to a drug trafficking offense.
Rep. Stephen Paduano of Abang Lingkod party-list made the statement ahead of the caucus of administration lawmakers in connection with the plenary debates on the death penalty measure.
“The ‘yes’ vote [for death penalty]in the House has now the [majority]number. I’m a member of the Visayan bloc. Last week we had a meeting. Out of 41 congressmen out of the Visayas bloc that’s headed by Congressman Benitez, only six of us will vote ‘no,’” Paduano told reporters.
He was referring to Rep. Alfredo Benitez of Negros Occidental.
“For the party-list coalition [of which I am also a member], more than half of the 40 of us will vote ‘yes,’” Paduano added.
The Super Majority bloc in the House of Representatives is composed of the ruling PDP-Laban, the Nationalist People’s Coalition, Nacionalista Party, National Unity Party, Liberal Party, Lakas-CMD and the party-list coalition.
Paduano, however, won’t vote for death penalty even if he belongs to the Super Majority.
“I believe everyone deserves a second chance. That is my faith and that is my religious belief. I believe congressmen should vote based on their conscience in this issue,” Paduano said.
Buhay party-list Rep. Jose Atienza, who opposes the bill, said the House should not be a stamp pad of the administration and should not blindly follow the orders of the President.
In a forum in Manila, he said the bill would only benefit the well-off as the justice system is stacked against the poor.
“As long as the criminal justice system is corrupt, we will not be able to fight effectively, criminality with death penalty,” he said.
Death for plunder, treason, drugs
The proposed death penalty bill will be amended to spare convicts of drug possession from execution, House Majority Leader Rodolfo Fariñas of Ilocos Norte said Monday.
Fariñas made the announcement after the caucus of administration lawmakers.
Crimes punishable by death penalty will include plunder, treason, and drug-related offenses except drug possession.
“Upon our agreement, we will introduce an amendatory bill. We removed [drug]possession,” Fariñas told reporters.
Under the Comprehensive Dangerous Drugs Act of 2002, a drug possession offense is punishable by life imprisonment to death when a person carries: 10 grams or more of opium; 10 grams or more of morphine; 10 grams or more of heroin; 10 grams or more of cocaine or cocaine hydrochloride; 50 grams or more of methamphetamine hydrochloride or “shabu”; 10 grams or more of marijuana resin or marijuana resin oil; 500 grams or more of marijuana; 10 grams or more of other dangerous drugs such as, but not limited to, methylenedioxymethamphetamine (MDA) or “ecstasy”, paramethoxyamphetamine (PMA), trimethoxyamphetamine (TMA), lysergic acid diethylamine (LSD), gamma hydroxyamphetamine (GHB), and those similarly designed or newly introduced drugs and their derivatives..
If a person carries illegal drugs less than the threshold, the punishment is reduced to life imprisonment.
The death penalty bill was abolished in 2006 during the presidency of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. This meant that the harshest punishment for drug possession offenses, regardless of the amount of drugs in possession of, is lifetime imprisonment.
Explaining the limited scope of the bill, Fariñas said: “The compelling reasons are present in these crimes. We should send a message to our people that giving aid and comfort to the enemy (treason) is a heinous crime which would merit death penalty, depending on the circumstances.”
“We also maintained that plunder is covered [in the bill],” Fariñas added.
However, he did not specify the threshold on when drug possession would be upgraded to a drug trafficking offense.
Published in
News
Tuesday, 21 February 2017 09:42
Legacy Islands on Water
IN Asia alone, there are 17 reclamation projects of note, such as: the coastlines of Mumbai, India; the coastlines of Mainland China, Hong Kong, North Korea and South Korea; the inland lowlands of the Yangtze Valley, China, including Shanghai and Wuhan; the coastline of Karachi, Pakistan; part of Hamad International Airport; the entire island of The Pearl-Qatar situated in West Bay (Doha) Qatar; Hailou Bay, Hainan Province, China as well as the west side of Haitian Island and Haikou City are all being extended; Cotai Strip in Macau; Nagoya Centrist Airport, Japan; Incheon International Airport, South Korea; Beirut Central District, Lebanon; and Europe, Africa and the Americas have their share of reclamation projects, too.
The Philippines has 7,641 islands and this number could still grow through land reclamation. What reclamation? The so-called enemy of environmentalists, right? But hold it and let’s see what kind of reclamation this is, considering we have lessons learned from the reclamation of Manila Bay in the past.
The Philippine Reclamation Authority (then known as the Philippine Estate Authority per EO 380 as of 2004) is set to build what is known as Legacy Islands on Water. Conscious of the issues attached to reclamation, the PRA has adopted three strategies: 1) purposive reclamation; 2) protective reclamation and 3) capacity development.
Purposive reclamation refers to Legacy Island on Water, or LIoW, that is “liveable, resilient, safe, sustainable, green, generative, pro-people, future-proofed and innovative, and a smart community.” On LIoWs and related developments, “the integration or combination of economic zones, smart community infrastructure, mangroves, flora and fauna eco-systems, renewable energy facilities, coastal protection structures, green landscapes and blue water, socialized housing units, water collection systems, waste management methodologies, public access networks, and mixed-used development are critical.”
Protective reclamation refers to an integrated coastal defense development based on the model funded by the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the “Coastal Protection Strategy for the City of Tacloban and Municipality of Palo, Leyte.” The PRA will seek assistance from donor and multi-lateral agencies, foreign governments and partner organizations to finance and conduct other studies for storm surge and coastal flooding-prone areas identified in the study. Preliminary inspection and assessment of the cities of Butuan, Bislig and Surigao have been conducted.
Organizationally, PRA Learning Ecology has been established. Capacity development programs, at the professional and personal levels, have been identified. If PRA has a green army, reclamation won’t be a zero-sum game.
Imagine a Philippines with additional destinations, self-contained agricultural estates, dairy farms, logistic hubs, tree farm islands; renewal energy model islands that can harness energy for use in the island and as inputs to grid in the main islands, etc. The possibilities are limitless. What if the areas that are part of our territory where there were land bridges before are reclaimed? Think about the possibilities but yes, as in other forms of development, there are issues on reclamation. There are advantages and disadvantages of land reclamation and knowing these is a sure way of avoiding and working around the issues.
Land reclamation means “more land has been made available for development. More buildings and infrastructure can be built, and also for other reasons.” The ability to connect the islands by ports, bridges, rails and airstrips are made easier. It may not be a concrete jungle but eco-tourism zones and industrial estates or model smart cities can be the blueprints. They can be the gems of federalism because the legacy islands will become the magnets of growth.
The disadvantages are aplenty as documented from various experiences: “Much greenery has been removed in order for the land needed. Land reclamation can be damaging to corals and marine life. Corals are usually moved to another place when land is to be reclaimed. The corals might not be able to survive in that certain habitat, and thus die out. In some countries, where the project is large-scale, they do not even bother to re-plant the corals elsewhere, instead just reclaim the land on their habitat, causing them to die out immediately. Marine life, such as fishes, might not have enough food after the underwater plantations are destroyed due to reclamation of land. This applies to the food chain. The waters might also be polluted from the soil used to reclaim land, causing the fishes to die and blocking out sunlight, depriving the underwater plants of growth. Marine habitats are also destroyed, as mentioned earlier; therefore, the marine creatures would be forced to move to another new habitat.” Can we mitigate the disadvantages? Manila Bay was reclaimed in the 1970s-1980s. The second phase took place in the 1990s. We learned from such plans and with new technology can do better reclamation today.
As in mining, the rigid environmental impact assessments (EIAs) should be able to assess environmental issues with regard to land reclamation projects. If the project is an environmentally critical project or is in an environmentally critical area, EIA is mandatory. EIAs normally consider issues such as impacts on species and habitats, other human uses (e.g. fisheries, navigation, recreation, cable and pipeline laying), international and national marine protected areas, water quality and coastal processes (sediment transport, erosion, sedimentation, hydrodynamics). The results of an EIA may affect the design/shape of the land reclamation, the public consultations and the permit conditions.
Of essence in planning for LIoW is a citizens’ monitoring feedback mechanism that encourages the participation of citizens in governance. Social acceptability of high impact projects is critical and getting the communities involved in the process will determine success or failure of a project.
Building a nation is not easy. It has never been been easy. But taking the first step and building a common platform to move makes the bottlenecks bearable. It will be hard, but let’s find the common ground.
The Philippines has 7,641 islands and this number could still grow through land reclamation. What reclamation? The so-called enemy of environmentalists, right? But hold it and let’s see what kind of reclamation this is, considering we have lessons learned from the reclamation of Manila Bay in the past.
The Philippine Reclamation Authority (then known as the Philippine Estate Authority per EO 380 as of 2004) is set to build what is known as Legacy Islands on Water. Conscious of the issues attached to reclamation, the PRA has adopted three strategies: 1) purposive reclamation; 2) protective reclamation and 3) capacity development.
Purposive reclamation refers to Legacy Island on Water, or LIoW, that is “liveable, resilient, safe, sustainable, green, generative, pro-people, future-proofed and innovative, and a smart community.” On LIoWs and related developments, “the integration or combination of economic zones, smart community infrastructure, mangroves, flora and fauna eco-systems, renewable energy facilities, coastal protection structures, green landscapes and blue water, socialized housing units, water collection systems, waste management methodologies, public access networks, and mixed-used development are critical.”
Protective reclamation refers to an integrated coastal defense development based on the model funded by the Kingdom of the Netherlands for the “Coastal Protection Strategy for the City of Tacloban and Municipality of Palo, Leyte.” The PRA will seek assistance from donor and multi-lateral agencies, foreign governments and partner organizations to finance and conduct other studies for storm surge and coastal flooding-prone areas identified in the study. Preliminary inspection and assessment of the cities of Butuan, Bislig and Surigao have been conducted.
Organizationally, PRA Learning Ecology has been established. Capacity development programs, at the professional and personal levels, have been identified. If PRA has a green army, reclamation won’t be a zero-sum game.
Imagine a Philippines with additional destinations, self-contained agricultural estates, dairy farms, logistic hubs, tree farm islands; renewal energy model islands that can harness energy for use in the island and as inputs to grid in the main islands, etc. The possibilities are limitless. What if the areas that are part of our territory where there were land bridges before are reclaimed? Think about the possibilities but yes, as in other forms of development, there are issues on reclamation. There are advantages and disadvantages of land reclamation and knowing these is a sure way of avoiding and working around the issues.
Land reclamation means “more land has been made available for development. More buildings and infrastructure can be built, and also for other reasons.” The ability to connect the islands by ports, bridges, rails and airstrips are made easier. It may not be a concrete jungle but eco-tourism zones and industrial estates or model smart cities can be the blueprints. They can be the gems of federalism because the legacy islands will become the magnets of growth.
The disadvantages are aplenty as documented from various experiences: “Much greenery has been removed in order for the land needed. Land reclamation can be damaging to corals and marine life. Corals are usually moved to another place when land is to be reclaimed. The corals might not be able to survive in that certain habitat, and thus die out. In some countries, where the project is large-scale, they do not even bother to re-plant the corals elsewhere, instead just reclaim the land on their habitat, causing them to die out immediately. Marine life, such as fishes, might not have enough food after the underwater plantations are destroyed due to reclamation of land. This applies to the food chain. The waters might also be polluted from the soil used to reclaim land, causing the fishes to die and blocking out sunlight, depriving the underwater plants of growth. Marine habitats are also destroyed, as mentioned earlier; therefore, the marine creatures would be forced to move to another new habitat.” Can we mitigate the disadvantages? Manila Bay was reclaimed in the 1970s-1980s. The second phase took place in the 1990s. We learned from such plans and with new technology can do better reclamation today.
As in mining, the rigid environmental impact assessments (EIAs) should be able to assess environmental issues with regard to land reclamation projects. If the project is an environmentally critical project or is in an environmentally critical area, EIA is mandatory. EIAs normally consider issues such as impacts on species and habitats, other human uses (e.g. fisheries, navigation, recreation, cable and pipeline laying), international and national marine protected areas, water quality and coastal processes (sediment transport, erosion, sedimentation, hydrodynamics). The results of an EIA may affect the design/shape of the land reclamation, the public consultations and the permit conditions.
Of essence in planning for LIoW is a citizens’ monitoring feedback mechanism that encourages the participation of citizens in governance. Social acceptability of high impact projects is critical and getting the communities involved in the process will determine success or failure of a project.
Building a nation is not easy. It has never been been easy. But taking the first step and building a common platform to move makes the bottlenecks bearable. It will be hard, but let’s find the common ground.
Published in
Commentaries
Saturday, 18 February 2017 11:11
Hobbled
It is a rare moment where observing American politics is actually more interesting than observing political developments at home. Watching Donald Trump negotiate his young presidency is like watching an acrobat crossing the high wire. We are all waiting for him to fall.
Three weeks into his presidency, Trump absorbed two major political defeats. That alone is unprecedented.
First, a federal judge in Washington stayed the implementation of Trump’s travel ban. The ban, issued by executive order, suspends travel from seven nations. Petitioners against the executive order say this is a thinly veiled anti-Muslim ban.
Trump’s travel ban infuriates Muslims everywhere. Analysts say this exposes US citizens abroad to retaliatory action. The ban, while politically costly for Trump, does little to reduce security threats to the US homeland.
Second, Trump was forced to ask his national security adviser to resign after evidence he discussed US sanctions against Russia with the Russian ambassador – while Obama was still president. The US Department of Justice warned the White House weeks ago that the national security adviser could be vulnerable to blackmail. At any rate, there is a standing law against private citizens conducting diplomacy.
Depending on what Trump knew of the liaison and when he knew about it, the American president is now himself vulnerable to a top-level inquiry. In the worst possible case, he could end up the shortest-serving US president in history.
Interspersed with the two major political defeats are a long series of gaffes and embarrassments.
Trumps senior adviser Kellyanne Conway browbeat media for under-reporting on acts of terror. She kept referring to a “massacre” that never happened. The very next day, she went on national television endorsing the clothing line of Trump daughter Ivanka. That provoked an ethics complaint against her.
Trump himself is walking scandal. On the very first day of his presidency, he warred with the “dishonest media” for understating the size of the crowd that turned up for the presidential inaugural. All the evidence point to a smaller crowd as reported. He claimed there was massive electoral fraud causing him to lose the popular vote. That claim remains fact-free to this day.
His nominee for education secretary so divided the US Senate Vice President Mike Pence had to cast a tie-breaking vote to get her confirmed. That is unprecedented in American political history. The vice president presides over the US Senate in a largely ceremonial role.
During the campaign, Trump promised to repeal “Obamacare” (the Affordable Health Care Act) on his first day in office. It turns out, he had no alternative health care plan worked out. When the Republican congressmen were sent to their districts to conduct town hall meetings on the matter, angry citizens shouted down the legislators.
Trump’s forays into foreign policy leave everybody flabbergasted.
During the campaign, he told voters he would build a high wall across the long southern border and will make Mexico pay for it. When he visited the Mexican president, he could not find the gall to ask his counterpart to pay for the wall. There was no mention of the wall at all.
Shortly after wining the elections, Trump took a call from the president of Taiwan. Beijing, as a matter of course, vigorously protested. Trump declared the One-China policy, a main feature of US foreign policy for decades, needs review. A couple of weeks ago, Trump took a call from the Chinese president and affirmed the One-China policy.
Trump, during the campaign, declared Japan should be made to pay for her own security. When Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited last week, Trump announced full support for Japan. He made no mention about the cost of doing so.
Earlier this week, meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, Trump surprised everybody by appearing to drop the two-state solution to the Palestinian solution. The two-state solution (a state for Israel and another for Palestine) has been a main plank of US foreign policy for decades.
The stalemate dragged on for so many years because Israeli hardliners (like Netanyahu) reject the idea of recognizing full Palestinian statehood. Trump’s latest statement on the matter is nearly as jaw-dropping as his earlier proposal to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Nothing would rile the Palestinians, and the entire Muslim world, more.
During the campaign, several dozen national security veterans signed an open letter warning about Trump’s lack of intellectual stability to be trusted with the nuclear codes. Trump’s fanatical base paid no heed to the warning.
Last week, a group of psychiatrists signed another open letter basically questioning Trump’s mental stability. The mental health professionals felt they would be remiss in their duties if they did not issue such a statement. The statement did not say what sane people could do about it.
When Rodrigo Duterte was elected last year, there were those who feared constant instability because of his blunt and gung-ho style of leadership. In contrast with Trump, Duterte is a lot more sedate. Our President shocks with his language but leaves policy-making relatively stable.
Trump, of course, wields a thousand times more power than our president. He could upset geopolitics and his policies could drive the American economy into a tailspin. What he does, the mess he creates, will impact on all nations.
Donald Trump has now become the main item of risk other governments must now factor into their calculations. We all hope the high office he now occupies will grow on him. There has, so far, been little indication of that – even as his job approval rating sinks by the day.
Three weeks into his presidency, Trump absorbed two major political defeats. That alone is unprecedented.
First, a federal judge in Washington stayed the implementation of Trump’s travel ban. The ban, issued by executive order, suspends travel from seven nations. Petitioners against the executive order say this is a thinly veiled anti-Muslim ban.
Trump’s travel ban infuriates Muslims everywhere. Analysts say this exposes US citizens abroad to retaliatory action. The ban, while politically costly for Trump, does little to reduce security threats to the US homeland.
Second, Trump was forced to ask his national security adviser to resign after evidence he discussed US sanctions against Russia with the Russian ambassador – while Obama was still president. The US Department of Justice warned the White House weeks ago that the national security adviser could be vulnerable to blackmail. At any rate, there is a standing law against private citizens conducting diplomacy.
Depending on what Trump knew of the liaison and when he knew about it, the American president is now himself vulnerable to a top-level inquiry. In the worst possible case, he could end up the shortest-serving US president in history.
Interspersed with the two major political defeats are a long series of gaffes and embarrassments.
Trumps senior adviser Kellyanne Conway browbeat media for under-reporting on acts of terror. She kept referring to a “massacre” that never happened. The very next day, she went on national television endorsing the clothing line of Trump daughter Ivanka. That provoked an ethics complaint against her.
Trump himself is walking scandal. On the very first day of his presidency, he warred with the “dishonest media” for understating the size of the crowd that turned up for the presidential inaugural. All the evidence point to a smaller crowd as reported. He claimed there was massive electoral fraud causing him to lose the popular vote. That claim remains fact-free to this day.
His nominee for education secretary so divided the US Senate Vice President Mike Pence had to cast a tie-breaking vote to get her confirmed. That is unprecedented in American political history. The vice president presides over the US Senate in a largely ceremonial role.
During the campaign, Trump promised to repeal “Obamacare” (the Affordable Health Care Act) on his first day in office. It turns out, he had no alternative health care plan worked out. When the Republican congressmen were sent to their districts to conduct town hall meetings on the matter, angry citizens shouted down the legislators.
Trump’s forays into foreign policy leave everybody flabbergasted.
During the campaign, he told voters he would build a high wall across the long southern border and will make Mexico pay for it. When he visited the Mexican president, he could not find the gall to ask his counterpart to pay for the wall. There was no mention of the wall at all.
Shortly after wining the elections, Trump took a call from the president of Taiwan. Beijing, as a matter of course, vigorously protested. Trump declared the One-China policy, a main feature of US foreign policy for decades, needs review. A couple of weeks ago, Trump took a call from the Chinese president and affirmed the One-China policy.
Trump, during the campaign, declared Japan should be made to pay for her own security. When Prime Minister Shinzo Abe visited last week, Trump announced full support for Japan. He made no mention about the cost of doing so.
Earlier this week, meeting with Israeli Prime Minister Benyamin Netanyahu, Trump surprised everybody by appearing to drop the two-state solution to the Palestinian solution. The two-state solution (a state for Israel and another for Palestine) has been a main plank of US foreign policy for decades.
The stalemate dragged on for so many years because Israeli hardliners (like Netanyahu) reject the idea of recognizing full Palestinian statehood. Trump’s latest statement on the matter is nearly as jaw-dropping as his earlier proposal to move the US embassy to Jerusalem. Nothing would rile the Palestinians, and the entire Muslim world, more.
During the campaign, several dozen national security veterans signed an open letter warning about Trump’s lack of intellectual stability to be trusted with the nuclear codes. Trump’s fanatical base paid no heed to the warning.
Last week, a group of psychiatrists signed another open letter basically questioning Trump’s mental stability. The mental health professionals felt they would be remiss in their duties if they did not issue such a statement. The statement did not say what sane people could do about it.
When Rodrigo Duterte was elected last year, there were those who feared constant instability because of his blunt and gung-ho style of leadership. In contrast with Trump, Duterte is a lot more sedate. Our President shocks with his language but leaves policy-making relatively stable.
Trump, of course, wields a thousand times more power than our president. He could upset geopolitics and his policies could drive the American economy into a tailspin. What he does, the mess he creates, will impact on all nations.
Donald Trump has now become the main item of risk other governments must now factor into their calculations. We all hope the high office he now occupies will grow on him. There has, so far, been little indication of that – even as his job approval rating sinks by the day.
Published in
Commentaries
Saturday, 18 February 2017 10:20
Talking about CHANGE
The specter of the new millennium insidiously hovering above us does not inspire much confidence. Every political nook and cranny are abuzz with talks about change in governance style, social and economic reforms and bureaucratic over-haul as de rigueur of the hour. Yet, we falter. We dilly-dally. We escape into the nitty-gritty of inconsequential pursuits, dabbling on the frivolous, on anything to occupy our pettiness, but the gravest of concerns for the country. Notwithstanding how we try to cocoon ourselves though and persist on a stubborn preference for the dull and ordinary, the factuality of the inevitable is right here in front of us. No escape. We must face what we have to face--else, we perish.
Democratic deficits in all levels and corners are like giant worms consuming the country. Lack of transparency and accountability, prevalence of patronage politics, plunder by the oligarchy, trickle-down technocratic decision making, inadequate people participation, and worse, a political system that favors the moneyed and the influential few.
Almost every day, we witness a restive people joining protest rallies peppering the streets with big questions like why only small fries fry while those perceived to be corrupt are still scot-free. The grapevines are hot with talks about martial law making a comeback, with the dubious Marcos legacy close on its tail and the ‘Yellow’ forces funding and fanning dissent and unrest through its established loyal channels and followers.
A storm is brewing, not the kind triggered by a low pressure area with a tail end on cold front but a burn out citizenry impatient with results: the incarceration of “big fish” politicians, total dismantling of the drug menace, emancipation from abject poverty and deliverance from police ineptitude and corruptibility. But that’s about it, we just talk and talk about all these meaningless talks. And it’s about to blow up in our face.
Should we just live and let live? Should we persist in our apathy and indifference and live up to our name as the ‘sick man’ of Asia? Or are we just waiting to reach rock bottom and convince ourselves there would be no other way to go but up? If we are going nuts and bonkers of these social maladies besetting our country, we know we can’t go beyond our shores to look for the culprit.
Change or whatever it is we hold sacred to redeem us starts with us. George Bernard Shaw once said, “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
Change is indeed a much-prostituted word. Most if not all administrations have used such slogan. NOW, what is to be done? First, everybody must understand that there is a problem with the current system and form of government. And this reality calls for a major overhaul in politics and bureaucracy. Second, that there is poverty, and this has to be addressed before any meaningful reforms can be effected in our institutions.
Change is coming? I doubt if all we do is talk about it.
Filipinos deserve a First World Philippines.
Democratic deficits in all levels and corners are like giant worms consuming the country. Lack of transparency and accountability, prevalence of patronage politics, plunder by the oligarchy, trickle-down technocratic decision making, inadequate people participation, and worse, a political system that favors the moneyed and the influential few.
Almost every day, we witness a restive people joining protest rallies peppering the streets with big questions like why only small fries fry while those perceived to be corrupt are still scot-free. The grapevines are hot with talks about martial law making a comeback, with the dubious Marcos legacy close on its tail and the ‘Yellow’ forces funding and fanning dissent and unrest through its established loyal channels and followers.
A storm is brewing, not the kind triggered by a low pressure area with a tail end on cold front but a burn out citizenry impatient with results: the incarceration of “big fish” politicians, total dismantling of the drug menace, emancipation from abject poverty and deliverance from police ineptitude and corruptibility. But that’s about it, we just talk and talk about all these meaningless talks. And it’s about to blow up in our face.
Should we just live and let live? Should we persist in our apathy and indifference and live up to our name as the ‘sick man’ of Asia? Or are we just waiting to reach rock bottom and convince ourselves there would be no other way to go but up? If we are going nuts and bonkers of these social maladies besetting our country, we know we can’t go beyond our shores to look for the culprit.
Change or whatever it is we hold sacred to redeem us starts with us. George Bernard Shaw once said, “Progress is impossible without change, and those who cannot change their minds cannot change anything.”
Change is indeed a much-prostituted word. Most if not all administrations have used such slogan. NOW, what is to be done? First, everybody must understand that there is a problem with the current system and form of government. And this reality calls for a major overhaul in politics and bureaucracy. Second, that there is poverty, and this has to be addressed before any meaningful reforms can be effected in our institutions.
Change is coming? I doubt if all we do is talk about it.
Filipinos deserve a First World Philippines.
Published in
Commentaries
Friday, 17 February 2017 10:42
Crime surge due to Aquino’s incompetence, not to death penalty’s lifting
Last of 2 Parts
IT will be so tragic if President Duterte gets Congress to reinstate the death penalty. The surge of heinous crimes in the country is not because of the lifting of capital punishment in 2006, but because of the incompetence of immediate past President Benigno Aquino 3rd, whose forces continue to plot against his government.
Senate Bill 42, introduced by former police chief Senator Panfilo Lacson, reveals its gross ignorance: “The alarming surge of heinous crimes in recent years has shown that reclusion perpetua (which replaced execution in a 2006 law) is not a deterrent to grave offenders.”
But what “recent years”’ is Lacson talking about? This logically are the past six years, from 2010 to 2015, when the Philippine National Police was under Aquino’s bosom buddy, Alan Purisima. And it was during these years that there was a near total breakdown of peace and order, with Duterte himself repeatedly saying that we practically had a narco state during these years.
Crime statistics prove this point, and debunk the very wrong claim that the lifting of the death penalty in 2006, the index crime rate even went down from 47.5 that year to 42 in 2007 and 41 in 2008. This completely debunks Senator Lacson’s thesis that the absence of capital punishment encouraged criminals to murder and rape more.
There was a surge in reports of index crimes in 2009, but this was mainly due to a change in the Philippine National Police’s reporting system which expanded what police precincts should report as crimes in their jurisdiction. The PNP also clamped down on many precinct commanders’ penchant to under-report crime incidences to make it appear that they were excellent law enforcers in their territory.
Rocketed up
As a result, the number of index crimes reported rocketed up from just 36,057 in 2008 to 301,703 in 2009 and 204,979 in 2010, probably as police precinct commanders thought it was safer to err on the side of more crimes, not less.
The reporting system, however, seemed to have normalized in the first years of the Aquino regime, registering 218, 160, and 135 index crimes per 100,000 people in 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively.
However, the index crime rates surged in 2013 and 2014, to 466 and 493, respectively. Those huge numbers practically indicate a crime wave: from just 129,161 index crimes in 2012,the number more than doubled to 458,000 in 2013 and 492,000 in 2014.
Death penalty has got nothing to do with it. PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY
This can only be explained by the breakdown of peace and order in the country, as the PNP under Purisima and Aquino lost control of the police, which likely were demoralized by the incompetence of the two. Aquino and his sidekick, Interior Secretary Mar Roxas, who was officially in charge of the PNP, were also unconcerned about the surge in crime.
The illegal-drug problem had also proliferated, reflected in the data that homicides — committed often by drugged addicts — more than doubled, from 3,000 in 2012 to 6,500 in 2013, while incidences of physical injury zoomed from just 35,000 in 2012 to 223,000 in 2013.
The data is indisputable. The surge in heinous crimes was not because of the lifting of the death penalty in 2006, but because we had such an inutile President, incapable of addressing the country’s perennial crime problem.
This of course is not something unique to the Philippines. A comprehensive study in 2013 (“Relationship between police efficiency and crime rate: a worldwide approach,” European Journal of Law and Economics) evaluated the relationship between crime rates in a number of countries from 1998 to 2006.
Police efficiency
Its firm conclusion: It is police efficiency rather than such factors as population density, GDP per capita, or unemployment rate, that mainly determines crime rates in particular territories.
The well-known case here is of course New York City in the 1990s where Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s get-tough approach to crime, as well as other major policy changes (including such simple moves as immediately erasing graffiti on walls and trains), very dramatically brought down the metropolis’ crime rate, with violent crime declining more than 56 percent.
Before Congress pushes to restore the death penalty, which would be a step backward in our march towards becoming a civilized society and would put us in the club of such countries as North Korea, Yemen, and Iraq, it should let Duterte do his work first in addressing the crime problem.
Capital punishment is also so against the poor who can’t afford lawyers: After the four rich brats sentenced to death for the rape of Maggie de la Riva in 1967 (three were executed, one died in prison from drug overdose), I am not aware of any rich Filipino meted the death penalty, and actually killed.
There just isn’t any proof that capital punishment deters crime. Why rush in restoring it? It will be so sad if the Senate passes a law not based on facts, but motivated by emotion or the calculation that this would appeal to voters. We’re aghast, and sick and tired of extra-judicial killings. Now you want judicial killings?
After all, we all agree that Duterte is so totally different from his wimpy and lazy predecessor, and he can lick crime in our unlucky country.
IT will be so tragic if President Duterte gets Congress to reinstate the death penalty. The surge of heinous crimes in the country is not because of the lifting of capital punishment in 2006, but because of the incompetence of immediate past President Benigno Aquino 3rd, whose forces continue to plot against his government.
Senate Bill 42, introduced by former police chief Senator Panfilo Lacson, reveals its gross ignorance: “The alarming surge of heinous crimes in recent years has shown that reclusion perpetua (which replaced execution in a 2006 law) is not a deterrent to grave offenders.”
But what “recent years”’ is Lacson talking about? This logically are the past six years, from 2010 to 2015, when the Philippine National Police was under Aquino’s bosom buddy, Alan Purisima. And it was during these years that there was a near total breakdown of peace and order, with Duterte himself repeatedly saying that we practically had a narco state during these years.
Crime statistics prove this point, and debunk the very wrong claim that the lifting of the death penalty in 2006, the index crime rate even went down from 47.5 that year to 42 in 2007 and 41 in 2008. This completely debunks Senator Lacson’s thesis that the absence of capital punishment encouraged criminals to murder and rape more.
There was a surge in reports of index crimes in 2009, but this was mainly due to a change in the Philippine National Police’s reporting system which expanded what police precincts should report as crimes in their jurisdiction. The PNP also clamped down on many precinct commanders’ penchant to under-report crime incidences to make it appear that they were excellent law enforcers in their territory.
Rocketed up
As a result, the number of index crimes reported rocketed up from just 36,057 in 2008 to 301,703 in 2009 and 204,979 in 2010, probably as police precinct commanders thought it was safer to err on the side of more crimes, not less.
The reporting system, however, seemed to have normalized in the first years of the Aquino regime, registering 218, 160, and 135 index crimes per 100,000 people in 2010, 2011 and 2012, respectively.
However, the index crime rates surged in 2013 and 2014, to 466 and 493, respectively. Those huge numbers practically indicate a crime wave: from just 129,161 index crimes in 2012,the number more than doubled to 458,000 in 2013 and 492,000 in 2014.
Death penalty has got nothing to do with it. PHILIPPINE STATISTICS AUTHORITY
This can only be explained by the breakdown of peace and order in the country, as the PNP under Purisima and Aquino lost control of the police, which likely were demoralized by the incompetence of the two. Aquino and his sidekick, Interior Secretary Mar Roxas, who was officially in charge of the PNP, were also unconcerned about the surge in crime.
The illegal-drug problem had also proliferated, reflected in the data that homicides — committed often by drugged addicts — more than doubled, from 3,000 in 2012 to 6,500 in 2013, while incidences of physical injury zoomed from just 35,000 in 2012 to 223,000 in 2013.
The data is indisputable. The surge in heinous crimes was not because of the lifting of the death penalty in 2006, but because we had such an inutile President, incapable of addressing the country’s perennial crime problem.
This of course is not something unique to the Philippines. A comprehensive study in 2013 (“Relationship between police efficiency and crime rate: a worldwide approach,” European Journal of Law and Economics) evaluated the relationship between crime rates in a number of countries from 1998 to 2006.
Police efficiency
Its firm conclusion: It is police efficiency rather than such factors as population density, GDP per capita, or unemployment rate, that mainly determines crime rates in particular territories.
The well-known case here is of course New York City in the 1990s where Mayor Rudolph Giuliani’s get-tough approach to crime, as well as other major policy changes (including such simple moves as immediately erasing graffiti on walls and trains), very dramatically brought down the metropolis’ crime rate, with violent crime declining more than 56 percent.
Before Congress pushes to restore the death penalty, which would be a step backward in our march towards becoming a civilized society and would put us in the club of such countries as North Korea, Yemen, and Iraq, it should let Duterte do his work first in addressing the crime problem.
Capital punishment is also so against the poor who can’t afford lawyers: After the four rich brats sentenced to death for the rape of Maggie de la Riva in 1967 (three were executed, one died in prison from drug overdose), I am not aware of any rich Filipino meted the death penalty, and actually killed.
There just isn’t any proof that capital punishment deters crime. Why rush in restoring it? It will be so sad if the Senate passes a law not based on facts, but motivated by emotion or the calculation that this would appeal to voters. We’re aghast, and sick and tired of extra-judicial killings. Now you want judicial killings?
After all, we all agree that Duterte is so totally different from his wimpy and lazy predecessor, and he can lick crime in our unlucky country.
Published in
Commentaries
Friday, 17 February 2017 09:57
Cayetano to SolGen: Explain bid to acquit Napoles
SENATOR Alan Peter Cayetano, a key administration ally, on Thursday said he will seek an explanation from the Office of the Solicitor General (OSG) on why it had recommended the acquittal of pork barrel scam brains Janet Napoles in a case for illegal detention.
“On the Napoles case, like you, I’m also asking for an explanation… Like you, I also want the [Solicitor General] to answer. But I guarantee you that the President will not allow any corruption to happen during the administration. And he will not absolve those who were corrupt in past administrations,” Cayetano said at the sidelines of a Senate inquiry into the bribery scandal at the Bureau of Immigration.
Cayetano was reacting to a Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism report that the new lawyers at the OSG had filed with the Court of Appeals a manifestation recommending the acquittal of Napoles for the crime of serious illegal detention filed by her second cousin, pork barrel scam whistleblower Benhur Luy.
The manifestation cited evidence that Luy, a former aide of Napoles, was free to move even if he was staying in a retreat house.
Napoles is the alleged mastermind of the scheme in which lawmakers got kickbacks from the Priority Development Assistance Fund, also known as pork barrel, by funneling the money through bogus non-governmental organizations.
Cayetano blamed the previous administration for building a weak case against Napoles and letting some personalities go scot-free.
“Why is it that the cases filed during the Aquino administration were weak? We foresaw that at that time because the big cases like ‘Hello Garci’ (2004 election fraud) were neglected. Here with Napoles, many were excluded from the cases filed by the previous administration,” he said in a mix of Filipino and English.
President Rodrigo Duterte’s chief legal counsel however believes there is “very strong evidence” against Napoles in her pork barrel-related cases.
Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo said this as he defended the OSG’s move, which he said would not affect the strength of pork barrel scam cases filed against Napoles.
“It will never be affected because these are two different cases,” Panelo told reporters.
He reiterated that it was Solicitor General Jose Calida’s duty as the top government lawyer to review cases.
“If upon review of the case, the OSG feels that it has no evidence to get a conviction [and]that there is [no]proof beyond reasonable doubt, then it is his duty under the Constitution and the law to state his position that there is no such case against the accused,” he said.
“Otherwise you will be creating injustice putting an innocent person behind bars,” Panelo added.
Malacañang on Thursday belied claims that Calida was lawyering for Napoles.
“He’s just simply trying to correct want he thinks, what he sees, what he perceives is something that needs to be rectified,” presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said in a news conference.
“On the Napoles case, like you, I’m also asking for an explanation… Like you, I also want the [Solicitor General] to answer. But I guarantee you that the President will not allow any corruption to happen during the administration. And he will not absolve those who were corrupt in past administrations,” Cayetano said at the sidelines of a Senate inquiry into the bribery scandal at the Bureau of Immigration.
Cayetano was reacting to a Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism report that the new lawyers at the OSG had filed with the Court of Appeals a manifestation recommending the acquittal of Napoles for the crime of serious illegal detention filed by her second cousin, pork barrel scam whistleblower Benhur Luy.
The manifestation cited evidence that Luy, a former aide of Napoles, was free to move even if he was staying in a retreat house.
Napoles is the alleged mastermind of the scheme in which lawmakers got kickbacks from the Priority Development Assistance Fund, also known as pork barrel, by funneling the money through bogus non-governmental organizations.
Cayetano blamed the previous administration for building a weak case against Napoles and letting some personalities go scot-free.
“Why is it that the cases filed during the Aquino administration were weak? We foresaw that at that time because the big cases like ‘Hello Garci’ (2004 election fraud) were neglected. Here with Napoles, many were excluded from the cases filed by the previous administration,” he said in a mix of Filipino and English.
President Rodrigo Duterte’s chief legal counsel however believes there is “very strong evidence” against Napoles in her pork barrel-related cases.
Chief Presidential Legal Counsel Salvador Panelo said this as he defended the OSG’s move, which he said would not affect the strength of pork barrel scam cases filed against Napoles.
“It will never be affected because these are two different cases,” Panelo told reporters.
He reiterated that it was Solicitor General Jose Calida’s duty as the top government lawyer to review cases.
“If upon review of the case, the OSG feels that it has no evidence to get a conviction [and]that there is [no]proof beyond reasonable doubt, then it is his duty under the Constitution and the law to state his position that there is no such case against the accused,” he said.
“Otherwise you will be creating injustice putting an innocent person behind bars,” Panelo added.
Malacañang on Thursday belied claims that Calida was lawyering for Napoles.
“He’s just simply trying to correct want he thinks, what he sees, what he perceives is something that needs to be rectified,” presidential spokesman Ernesto Abella said in a news conference.
Published in
News
Friday, 17 February 2017 08:01
MILLENNIALS ON THE MOVE: Lost in Surigao Del Sur to Find the Truth
Long and Wrong Route
As the title goes, I once found myself riding a 5-hour ride going to Surigao City. I was all anxious and my partner was on the verge of despair. Where is this road leading us?! It was the longest ride of our lives.
We woke up early to catch the friendly morning sun rays as any traveler would. We started off from Barobo Surigao Del Norte and made several pit stops along the way, either to ask people where is the road leading to Surigao City or rest our bones for a while.
People would just nod every time we ask them if we are nearing Surigao City. They just say the same thing: “Just go straight”, and so we went straight ahead. We were already went as far as Tandag when an old lady selling ripe mangoes at the roadside told us that we went the longer route from Barobo to Surigao City. Had we went back to Surigao Del Norte via Butuan route, Surigao City might have been just a 3-hour ride.
But we persisted ,and it’s already too late to backtrack.
What we saw in Carrascal
The air is getting more saturated with dust, and we have to wipe it out from our helmets as it’s becoming more difficult to go uphill. We pulled over at the shady part of the road. At first I thought, where is this place and why is it all covered with red dusts?
My partner told me that we’re at the foot of a large open pit mining. We surveyed the area and of course took some pictures. We saw several makeshift shelters beneath the almost dead trees owned by former Lumad inhabitants who decided not to leave their land. Right in front of us was a stark and glaring irony of former inhabitants now illegal settlers, and foreign investors raping the life out of the mountains.
We asked the Lumad inhabitants what are they doing there and they said they have no choice. They have to scavenge for food and they have nowhere to go. Before, animals especially wild boars and deer are plenty and they never run out of food. Most of the people in their community already went away and searched for new places to put up their huts and re-build their lives. After several Lumad leaders who went against the mining industry were killed one by one, they lost all hopes of going back again, like what it used to be. We bade goodbye and went on.
We have seen the full view of the mining devastation from the top hill. The coffee-colored water oozed from the hills straight out to the coastal area. It’s like blood flowing from the valley wounds, and its cry can be heard by the harrowing sound of the wind. The coastal area surrounding the valleys are colored red and brown. It was more like a sea of blood at first glance.
We have to move forward as we want to reach the city proper before it gets dark. Upon reaching the town, we went to the first gasoline station and have the motor pumped to full. While filling, we asked the gasoline boy about the mining industry in their town. I particularly asked if there were improvements in the lives of the people, were their more jobs ever since the mining industry started?
At first he was hesitant to answer, thinking perhaps we are insiders or reporters or investigators making a case out of the mining industry in their place. But then he gave in and said that the lives of the people in their place didn’t particularly improved. Some benefited but many are still impoverished. He said that most of the workers hired by the mining companies are not from their area. Some are even foreigners, mostly Chinese. In addition, he said that the whole town is owned by the mining companies. As I looked around, yes that was obvious. Most of the signage in every building had the name of the largest mining firm. He said that the one getting rich in their town are the mining companies and the local government leaders who approve the mining contracts.
We rode away with a heavy heart and a painful truth embedded in our minds. It was not just about finding our way to Surigao City, but finding out the truth about the social and environmental injustices committed by these mining firms with the local government as their accomplices! Truly, some times we get lost only to find the truth.
As the title goes, I once found myself riding a 5-hour ride going to Surigao City. I was all anxious and my partner was on the verge of despair. Where is this road leading us?! It was the longest ride of our lives.
We woke up early to catch the friendly morning sun rays as any traveler would. We started off from Barobo Surigao Del Norte and made several pit stops along the way, either to ask people where is the road leading to Surigao City or rest our bones for a while.
People would just nod every time we ask them if we are nearing Surigao City. They just say the same thing: “Just go straight”, and so we went straight ahead. We were already went as far as Tandag when an old lady selling ripe mangoes at the roadside told us that we went the longer route from Barobo to Surigao City. Had we went back to Surigao Del Norte via Butuan route, Surigao City might have been just a 3-hour ride.
But we persisted ,and it’s already too late to backtrack.
What we saw in Carrascal
The air is getting more saturated with dust, and we have to wipe it out from our helmets as it’s becoming more difficult to go uphill. We pulled over at the shady part of the road. At first I thought, where is this place and why is it all covered with red dusts?
My partner told me that we’re at the foot of a large open pit mining. We surveyed the area and of course took some pictures. We saw several makeshift shelters beneath the almost dead trees owned by former Lumad inhabitants who decided not to leave their land. Right in front of us was a stark and glaring irony of former inhabitants now illegal settlers, and foreign investors raping the life out of the mountains.
We asked the Lumad inhabitants what are they doing there and they said they have no choice. They have to scavenge for food and they have nowhere to go. Before, animals especially wild boars and deer are plenty and they never run out of food. Most of the people in their community already went away and searched for new places to put up their huts and re-build their lives. After several Lumad leaders who went against the mining industry were killed one by one, they lost all hopes of going back again, like what it used to be. We bade goodbye and went on.
We have seen the full view of the mining devastation from the top hill. The coffee-colored water oozed from the hills straight out to the coastal area. It’s like blood flowing from the valley wounds, and its cry can be heard by the harrowing sound of the wind. The coastal area surrounding the valleys are colored red and brown. It was more like a sea of blood at first glance.
We have to move forward as we want to reach the city proper before it gets dark. Upon reaching the town, we went to the first gasoline station and have the motor pumped to full. While filling, we asked the gasoline boy about the mining industry in their town. I particularly asked if there were improvements in the lives of the people, were their more jobs ever since the mining industry started?
At first he was hesitant to answer, thinking perhaps we are insiders or reporters or investigators making a case out of the mining industry in their place. But then he gave in and said that the lives of the people in their place didn’t particularly improved. Some benefited but many are still impoverished. He said that most of the workers hired by the mining companies are not from their area. Some are even foreigners, mostly Chinese. In addition, he said that the whole town is owned by the mining companies. As I looked around, yes that was obvious. Most of the signage in every building had the name of the largest mining firm. He said that the one getting rich in their town are the mining companies and the local government leaders who approve the mining contracts.
We rode away with a heavy heart and a painful truth embedded in our minds. It was not just about finding our way to Surigao City, but finding out the truth about the social and environmental injustices committed by these mining firms with the local government as their accomplices! Truly, some times we get lost only to find the truth.
Published in
Commentaries
Thursday, 16 February 2017 10:24
House panel okays FOI bill
THE House Committee on Public Information has approved the proposed Freedom of Information (FOI) bill that will make government activities transparent.
The panel, led by Rep. Antonio Tinio of Alliance of Concerned Teachers party-list, consolidated 35 versions of the FOI measure that will cover all government agencies in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches as well as constitutional bodies.
“We are working for the swift enactment into law of the FOI bill, considering that this is one of the priorities of the Duterte administration. We hope that, with the support of the House leadership, we will soon be able to take up the FOI bill in plenary,” Tinio said in a statement.
Tinio said the FOI bill embodies two aspects of the “right to information” as mandated by the 1987 Constitution: full public disclosure and citizens’ access to information.
“Full public disclosure provides that every Filipino, without the need of request, should be able to get information on government records and transactions. The approved FOI also reiterates the Constitution’s mandate to disclose the Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth of certain officials,” Tinio said.
“The policy of full public disclosure is not fully fleshed out in our current laws. The FOI bill seeks to address that gap,” he added.
The FOI measure, however, still has a lengthy list of exceptions contained in two pages.
The general exceptions include information on national security; classified information (subject to mandatory declassification review after six years); exchanges during an executive session; trade secrets; invasion of personal privacy unless such information is specifically required by law; and privileged communications, among others.
The panel, led by Rep. Antonio Tinio of Alliance of Concerned Teachers party-list, consolidated 35 versions of the FOI measure that will cover all government agencies in the Executive, Legislative and Judicial branches as well as constitutional bodies.
“We are working for the swift enactment into law of the FOI bill, considering that this is one of the priorities of the Duterte administration. We hope that, with the support of the House leadership, we will soon be able to take up the FOI bill in plenary,” Tinio said in a statement.
Tinio said the FOI bill embodies two aspects of the “right to information” as mandated by the 1987 Constitution: full public disclosure and citizens’ access to information.
“Full public disclosure provides that every Filipino, without the need of request, should be able to get information on government records and transactions. The approved FOI also reiterates the Constitution’s mandate to disclose the Statements of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth of certain officials,” Tinio said.
“The policy of full public disclosure is not fully fleshed out in our current laws. The FOI bill seeks to address that gap,” he added.
The FOI measure, however, still has a lengthy list of exceptions contained in two pages.
The general exceptions include information on national security; classified information (subject to mandatory declassification review after six years); exchanges during an executive session; trade secrets; invasion of personal privacy unless such information is specifically required by law; and privileged communications, among others.
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.
