Following is the Dept. of Foreign Affairs transcript of the 8-minute Press Conference of President Barack Obama and Gloria Arroyo. From USA Today's David Jackson's report it seems most of the eight minutes was really taken up by interest in the BEER SUMMIT held by Barack Obama with Henry Gates, James Crowley and Joe Biden in the Rose Garden. Barack got it right (though he was careless reading the teleprompter)  about the RP-US relationship being historical, cultural, diplomatic, military AND personal. His description, that "it dates back many years" seems a bit off--since it's been goin' on for more than 110 years. And when he said, "The Philippines is not the largest country in the world..." he could not be referring to its population of nearly 100 million, the twelfth largest country in the world. The US President exchanged mutual compliments with the visiting Philippines leader and then launched into an answer to a question about US GDP figures due out Friday.  Naming the Philippines as the "coordinating country" for ASEAN to carry the ball on such clearly long-term projects as human rights, nuclear nonproliferation and anti-terrorism must mean however that even Barack knows Gloria is a Lame Duck now and has begun the long slow descent from zenith to the cliff's edge...

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, let me express my thanks and appreciation for the visit from President Arroyo. As we discussed during our meeting here and our delegations, the relationship between the United States and the Philippines dates back many years. It is a friendship that is forged not only in treaties and trade relationships and military relationships, but it is also strengthened by very personal ties that exist between our two countries. We are proud to have 4 million persons of Filipino ancestry contributing to our country each and every day, in all walks of life. The fact that we have Filipino veterans who have fought side by side with American soldiers on behalf of freedom — all those things have strengthened the relationship between our two countries.

I am very pleased that President Arroyo has made such good progress on dealing with counterterrorism issues. She has initiated a peace process in Mindanao that we think is — has the potential to bring peace and stability to a part of the Philippines that has been wracked by unrest for too long. We are very grateful of the strong voice that the Philippines has provided in dealing with issues in Asia ranging from the human rights violations that have for too long existed in Burma to the problems that we’re seeing with respect to nuclear proliferation in North Korea.

I am looking forward to my travels to Southeast Asia, and the Philippines will be the coordinating country in the U.S. relationship with ASEAN, the primary organization — strategic organization for Southeast Asian countries. And in addition, the Philippines will be sharing the Non-Proliferation Treaty conference that will be taking next — place next year.

And so we’re going to have a busy agenda together working to reduce the threat of nuclear weapons, improving the multilateral partnerships in Asia that can create greater security and greater prosperity for all countries. And in addition, we continue to be grateful for the outstanding contributions that the Philippines has made with respect to U.N. peacekeeping around the world.

So although the Philippines is not the largest of countries, it, in using a phrase from boxing, punches above its weight in the international arena, and we are very grateful that President Arroyo has visited us here today, and we are looking forward to using this meeting as a way of launching even greater cooperation between our two countries in the years to come.

PRESIDENT ARROYO: Thank you, Mr. President, and thank you for inviting me to have this very important conversation here in the White House.

The U.S. is very essential to the economic, diplomatic, and national security of our country. We are very thankful for the U.S. as an important ally in helping to professionalize our military and making it more effective.

Just as important, we are thankful to the U.S. for being such a good ally in our — working on soft power by helping us build bridges, roads, schools, not only in Mindanao but across the nation. And this assistance of the U.S. has gone a long way in helping us to achieve what we have been able to achieve in the peace process in Mindanao in southern Philippines, and also in our fight against terrorism.

I was very happy to let President Obama know that the Muslim secessionists have agreed, together with a Philippine government panel, to work towards a resumption of formal peace talks, and we’re very thankful for the international community, including the U.S., for their assistance in bringing us to this stage.

Internationally, we stand foursquare behind the United States on the position that it has taken with regard to Burma and with regard to North Korea’s nuclear adventurism.

We also applaud President Obama for his leadership on climate change, which is so important to the Philippines because we are an archipelagic country and severe climate change is going to be disastrous for our country. We are already feeling the weather pattern changes in the rising seas.

We are also — finally, may I say that I bring the thanks also of our Filipino veterans for the inclusion of the veterans’ benefits in the fiscal stimulus package, something that we have all waited for as a country for the last 60 years.

So I’m very grateful for this opportunity. We thank the Obama administration for the new engagement in our part of the world, and we look forward to a stronger relationship between the U.S. and ASEAN and, bilaterally, a stronger relationship with our two countries.

Thank you, Mr. President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Thank you so much.

Okay, we’re going to take two questions, one from a Filipino reporter.

PRESIDENT ARROYO: Yes.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Yes. This gentleman right here. Is this a good — (laughter.)

Go ahead.

Q Thank you very much, Mr. President, and President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo. I am from the Philippine media, sir. It’s noted that you’re the first Asian head of state to be afforded by President Obama this — such an invitation. As much as this is your first time to see President Obama in person and you have talked to him, could you kindly share to us, Madam President, your impressions of the American President? (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT OBAMA: I’m sure she thinks I’m much younger looking than she expected. (Laughter.)

PRESIDENT ARROYO: Well, as a person, President Obama is very cordial, warm, and welcoming. And I’m really very impressed about — of his deep understanding and knowledge of the Philippines and the Filipino people — the understanding of the close relationship within the Filipino people and the American people.

And we — I think we connected very well also on our position with regard to Burma and Aung San Suu Kyi, with regard to North Korea and nuclear proliferation, with regard to human rights and terrorism. And we welcome President Obama’s reaching out to the Muslim world, and also we are very pleased about his — the importance that he accords to engagement with our part of the world.

Q Is it considered to be ungrateful if I will not get your reaction? It will be greatly appreciated if you can also give your impression of our President.

PRESIDENT OBAMA: Well, obviously, President Arroyo has done outstanding work on a whole range of issues. She mentioned the areas where the United States and the Philippines are of one accord, but as evidenced here today, she’s somebody who knows the issues. She has experience leading the Philippines through some very difficult times. She has expressed a great friendship towards the United States, and aside from her great personal charm — (laughter) — we are very appreciative of the concrete ways in which her administration has pursued strengthening ties with the United States. So I’m very grateful for that.

Okay, Jeff Mason.

Q Yes, sir. A double-barreled question for you. First of all, what do you expect to be the main message of the GDP figures that come out tomorrow? And second of all, what do you think will be the main message of your meeting tonight in the Rose Garden?

PRESIDENT OBAMA: On GDP, I don’t have a crystal ball and I haven’t received the figures yet, but I think if you look at the consensus of economists right now, it confirms that we have seen a significant slowing down of the contraction over the last several months. There are a lot of indicators out there that tell us that job losses, although still way too high, are not at the pace that we were seeing in January or February. Housing prices went up for the first time in three years. The credit system, the banking system, the financial markets generally have settled down. You’re not seeing the huge volatility or panic that you were seeing.

And so all of that is a sign that we have stepped away from the precipice. As Ben Bernanke and others across the ideological spectrum have indicated, we were in a position where we could have gone into a Great Depression. I think those fears have abated.

But I suspect that the GDP numbers will still show that the economy contracted in the second quarter, that job loss is still a huge problem. And you don’t have to read GDP numbers to see that; all you got to do is talk to the American people who are still losing jobs, losing homes, and worried about their ability to keep their health care and finance their child’s college educations. So we’re not going to rest until we have seen not just a technical improvement in GDP but until the American people’s job prospects, their incomes have rebounded — and that’s going to take some time.

With respect to tonight, you know, I am, I have to say, fascinated with the fascination about this evening. As you know, this idea was prompted when I was talking to Sergeant Crowley, and he said, well, maybe I’ll have a beer in the White House someday, and I said, well, you know, I’m sure that can be arranged.

I notice this had been called the “beer summit.” It’s a clever term, but this is not a summit, guys. This is three folks having a drink at the end of the day and hopefully giving people an opportunity to listen to each other. And that’s really all it is.

This is not a — this is not a university seminar. It is not a summit. It’s an attempt to have some personal interaction when an issue has become so hyped and so symbolic that you lose sight of just the fact that these are people involved, including myself, all of whom are imperfect. And hopefully instead of ginning up anger and hyperbole, everybody can just spend a little bit of time with some self-reflection and recognizing that other people have different points of view. And that’s all it is.

And so I will be surprised if you guys all make this the lead as opposed to a very important meeting that we just had with one of our most important partners in the world, but the press has surprised me before. (Laughter.)

Thank you very much.

END
SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

Even as her loyal House allies desperately push Conass at home, President Arroyo leaves for Washington D.C. today and a long-hoped-for personal meeting with US President BARACK OBAMA (whose kids have probably sampled exotic fare like adobo already at the White House). Mrs. Arroyo claims they are going to discuss Nuclear Nonproliferation, Veterans Affairs, Global Climate Change, and the Global Financial Crisis (all in 20 minutes). (I hope he sees Zelaya in a skirt). The Explainer Dialogues with Manolo Quezon analyzes the recent State of the Nation Address in last Monday's episode with Business World's Vergel O. Santos and Black and White Movement's Leah Roque. I was on the panel.




SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

In 1985 the reluctant Cory was convinced to run for president to unify the fragmented opposition. If she did not run for president, Marcos could have handily crushed the divided opposition in the 1986 snap presidential election namely Salvador Laurel (UNIDO), Aquilino Pimentel (PDP-Laban), Jovito Salonga (LP-Salonga Wing) and Eva Estrada Kalaw ( LP-Kalaw Wing) who were all hell-bent to run for president.


04 Feb 1986. Huge crowd of Cory Aquino supporters at the election campaign rally in Luneta Park.


The key to the EDSA revolution was the voice of Cory. If she did not run for president there would perhaps have been no EDSA. We would probably not have the freedom we are enjoying today.



We owe our democracy to Cory. At 76, Cory remains a moral and political force. A recent Pulse Asia survey revealed that Cory rated highest with a trust rating of 41% beating Erap, FVR and GMA. The Time magazine put her again in its cover in its 2006 anniversary issue as the leading hero of Asia’s 60-year history beating Gandhi, Aung San Suu Kyi, MacArthur, Dalai Lama, Mother Teresa and many more heroes of our time. She was also honored by prestigious foreign award-giving institutions for her continuing efforts to empower poor communities in the socio-economic sphere in collaboration with various sectors of society.

Delivered by President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo before a Joint Session of Congress on 27 July 2009 with Senate President Juan Ponce Enrile and House Speaker Prospero Nograles sharing the podium with her.



SOURCE: Philippine Commentary
I'll reserve my own Comments for the thread...

The National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzalez and his comrade Fr. Romeo Intengan met and proposed the establishment of a revolutionary transition government to Bishop Gaudencio Tobias and Chief Justice Reynato Puno. Is this not sedition? Shouldn’t the Palace be alarmed that the National Security Adviser is proposing the overthrow of the government?

Not according to Palace boob, Cerge Remonde. ( (READ HERE)

Remonde told dzBB radio, “Well, ah, hindi kami na-alarma riyan. Medyo sanay kami riyan sa mga ganyang klaseng initiative ni Sec. Gonzales. (We are not alarmed over that. We are already used to those initiatives by Gonzales) These things he does, he does as National Security Adviser.”

Gonzalez is the national security adviser, Cerge. Let me wipe the coffee off my nose first before I ask you, what the heck, you’re telling the public he often proposes initiatives to topple the government and this is part of his job as national security adviser? Abcerge!

And so the national security adviser is going to be made to explain, that’s all?

“The actions of Sec. Norberto Gonzales insofar as a transition council are entirely his own. He has no authority from the Cabinet or the President and therefore Sec. Gonzales lang maka-explain sa bagay na yan [therefore only Gonzales can explain his actions].”

Why is Gloria not ordering the Department of Justice to investigate the matter and to file charges against Gonzalez and Intengan if warranted? Why doesn't she put him on leave, is he not a security threat until cleared by an investigation?

What the hell is going on? It’s okay if a call for revolution comes from within but not okay if it comes from the opposition?


SOURCE: Life in Gloria's Enchanted Kingdom

Rachel Carson wrote in the 1950s (I think it was in "Under the Sea Wind") that science is "part of the fabric of life". In 1948, John Steinbeck (best known for "The Grapes of Wrath" and a 1962 Nobel Prizewinner in literature) wrote a foreword to Ed Ricketts "Between Pacific Tides" in which he notes that science is a new way of looking at the world despite its warps. Steinbeck and his marine biologist friend, Ricketts collaborated on a marine biology expedition in the Sea of Cortez in 1940. Their collaboration is considered to be a unique effort in viewing nature. Steinbeck used marine science to view nature using prose as a literary form and Ricketts viewed nature and how nature is viewed using science.

There would never be any other time since then when art and science would tryst. Art has become constructivist and science has become less reflective. Both Carson and Steinbeck had science and literary talent and training. Their works are examples of what we call now as the science essay genre. They also helped popularized science and communicate to the public how and what science does and its associated uncertainties.

Today the public wants answers to vexing questions on food security, climate change, the fate of human society, energy and a whole raft of environmental, economic and political issues. It weren't scientific papers published in "Nature" or "Science" that catalyzed public awareness on these issues but the works of Carson ("Silent Spring") and Steinbeck ("Log from the Sea of Cortez"). Carson can be the secular environmentalist counterpart of the Protestant Reformation's John Wycliffe. If Wycliffe is called today as the Morning Star of the Reformation, Carson could be called as the Morning Star of Environmentalism. In Silent Spring's first chapter, Carson described a hypothetical scenario when pesticides have eliminated 1) insects, 2) birds and people were having health problems as a result. Carson was a professional scientist and recognized that her work involved uncertainties and errors and the proposing of hypotheses were but part of her job. But today she is considered as a "witness for nature". The Christian allegory is so clear. She is a Saint. And by our understanding a Saint is definitely in heaven.

However she had trouble explaining to the US Congress especially the Senate on her scientific claims. Since the public wanted clear cut guidelines, the whole issue about pesticides became a black and white issue. It was either do away with pesticides or not and suffer the consequences. In fact, she wasn't for that but careful application of pesticides to prevent insect resistance.

Carson died of cancer (presumably due to her work on toxicology) and that ensured that she became environmentalism's first saint.

Scientists have to deal with uncertainties in their work. In reality this uncertainty is needed in motivating scientists to devise better ways, instruments and methods to do experiments to verify their hypotheses. Indeed an unwillingness to deal with uncertainties is the real barrier to progress. The products of scientific research is technology which we use in our daily lives. In using technology we expect that we certainly get a cell site signal when we want to send SMS. We expect to get a cable or broadcast signal when we turn on the TV to watch a show. We expect PAGASA to tell us when and where the next typhoon will hit.If we are certain, then we are content.

But with environmental catastrophe in the public awareness, scientists are often asked to give statements to the media and the media need certainty. Even in what wags say "scientifically backward" Philippines, we observe this. For instance I have been interviewed about biodiversity by popular media practitioners. Biodiversity is something that interests many Filipinos of all ages and social classes but even if one species does go extinct, this is unlikely to kill them immediately. So the warnings we give (despite the scientific uncertainty) are listened to but the solutions we dispense kind of give a sense of feel good hope. This is a good thing for the time being.

However contrast this with what happened to the ill fated Princess of the Stars last year. It is claimed that the captain of the ill fated ship depended on advisories issued by the Coast Guard which got them from PAGASA. Unbeknownst to the captain, he sailed his ship right into the eyewall of Typhoon Frank. The consequences as we know are tragic. The Philippine Congress had PAGASA and the PCG account for the "shortcomings" and the ship owners lodged a lawsuit against PAGASA. Too bad the media and the legal eagles in the blogosphere did not hoot much a peep on the significance of the suit. This was probably the first suit in the Philippines against a science agency and its scientists. The court dismissed the suit saying that no one can really control and predict the weather with that certainty.

But this exposed the real shortcomings of our weather bureau. It sorely needs more equipment, weather stations, and meteorologists. The Arroyo administration has recognized the equipment upgrades and the need for those Doppler radars (those who watch the Weather Channel know how Doppler radar plots look like). Around 10 radars have been ordered and they cost a million USD each. PAGASA personnel have been sent to the USA for training. However only a trickle of meteorology students enrol at UP's Institute of Environmental Science and Meteorology each year. This drought of weathermen/women means that even with new equipment, we don't have people that can use the radars and interpret the weather data. One of our major worries in the institute that this drought of students threatens the viability of the program and the weather service as a whole.

The public worldwide is not comfortable when scientists publicly express their uncertainties about their conclusions. I believe that the major reason why the global warming advocates and scientists needed an Al Gore is that he being a non-scientist may express this uncertainty without much ridicule (after all he is a layman). But in "Inconvenient Truth" this uncertainty was downplayed for the media hype purposes. The public hasn't really got the idea that uncertain science doesn't mean unsound science. But the demands for quick scientific solutions for real life problems means the public misconceptions are reinforced.

The Philippines faces an election year and in every election year, the environment becomes an election issue (aside from the usual corruption issue). Whether it is a Father Panlilio, Chiz Escudero, Manny Villar, Mar Roxas etc as candidates for president, expect that they will have a stand on environmental issues. They will depend on scientific advisors. Can the advisors advice them on how certain science is? Science will be playing a more important role in future elections as the Filipino public perceives a coming environmental catastrophe.

Society needs science but we are on the way to understand it and how it works. However we need to reexamine science in basic education and on to graduate school. The other choice is we consult with quacks, crocks and other charlatans who dispense information with nary a logical underpinning that sounds certain but whose uncertainty cannot be challenged.



SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

SOURCE: Social Weather Stations 2nd Quarter 2009 Press Release

This Chart summarizes over two years of SWS polling on the following question:

Under the present Constitution, the term of Pres. Arroyo is up to 2010 only, and there will be an election for a new President in May 2010. Who do you think are good leaders who should succeed Pres. Arroyo as President? You may give up to three names.

Various headlines are derived (sold?) from the quarterly public opinion polling data collected by SWS, in this case, from asking 1500 respondents the above question and tallying up how often various personalities are mentioned. But the claimed Margin of Error of plus or minus 2.5 percent is SPURIOUS, as one can easily verify that the reported percentages do not add up to 100%! Since there is no fixed menu of candidates given in the question, and the respondents were free to name up to three choices, this form of statistical survey cannot be analyzed and its accuracy ascertained using the methods that are applicable to surveys where there should only strictly speaking be two choices.

The more realistic measure of how accurate this series of polls is likely to be can be better seen in the numbers of one particular "CANDIDATE" that is never mentioned in the SWS spin of its own data: namely that of NONE or DON'T KNOW, which an inspection of the above chart will show actually competes with the leaders of the survey, and in fact, apparently topped the First Quarter SWS survey. But this fact never made it to the headlines.

Indeed, I would submit that the REAL STATISTICAL ERROR in the SWS survey is at least half of the NONE or DON'T KNOW percentage, that is, closer to plus or minus ten percent!

SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

It all turned out to be a false alarm.

Or is it?

After capturing the nation’s attention and filling the general populace with outrage, the alleged abduction and rape of the 13-year old daughter of an agent of the Philippine Drug Enforcement Agency (PDEA) in Baguio City seems to be a case of a father’s worry over his daughter’s not coming home on time.

It apparently turns out that the girl went out drinking with friends, and, since she didn’t come home on time, the father, given his line of work, understandably thought that the worst had happened. However, the girl’s companions have come out and have ‘fessed up, giving closure to the case.

However, the Philippine Daily Inquirer, which headlined the story last weekend, appears skeptical, and has hinted, in its story today, of a possible cover-up, considering the abrupt about-face of the government in its statements about the case. At first, the government spokespersons expressed the outrage that the public felt, and declared war on drugs; this, of course, prompted columnist Ramon Tulfo to question what the government was doing about the problem before the alleged abduction. With the announcement by PDEA chief Dionisio Santiago that the alleged abuction didn't happen, the spokespersons began backtracking and saying that the abduction news was "unverified". If this is the case, what happens to the war on drugs now?

I remember reading about the case last weekend, and I remember the revulsion and rage that I felt. I found myself agreeing with politicians calling for the re-imposition of the death penalty for these monsters who would stoop so low as to attack the dependents of agents working against them. Such beasts, I thought, have lost any right to life. Now, however, I find the rage dissipating and wonder at how the whole situation will affect the war against illegal drugs, which, despite the false alarm with the agent’s daughter, is a very real problem.

The fact that the case unleashed a wave of public indignation and outrage is an indicator of how widespread the problem is. It is unsettling to learn that the Philippines is one of the top movers of illegal drugs in the world, and one has to question what our government has been doing to stop this heinous trade.

One of the problems is that the drug syndicates are likely backed by powerful individuals, among our politicians, local officials and our military, making it difficult to impossible for any real progress to be made in rooting out the criminals. There is big money to be made in illegal drugs, and, with next year’s elections coming up, potential candidates need sizeable war chests in order to be able to run a credible campaign, and aren’t picky about where the funds come from.

I’m not sure how the problem can be solved, but it’s important that the government doesn’t let the false alarm over the agent’s daughter deter them from continuing to go after the syndicates. The only way, it seems, is to go after the ringleaders, and make sure that any charges against them stick. Of course, given the fact that a number of our officials are likely involved in the trade, it’s going to be a Herculean task.


SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

Many people didn’t know what to think when Norberto Gonzales, the national security adviser of Mrs. Gloria Arroyo, first broached the idea of a constitutional commission (con-com) as an alternative mode of changing the Charter. Maybe it’s because he didn’t say much, other than it was doable.

“The key is for the heads of our three branches of government to agree among themselves to undertake Charter change. To Secretary Gonzales’s mind, this is not a complicated thing,” said a press release from Gonzales’s political party, PDSP (Partido Demokratiko Sosyalista ng Pilipinas).

Well, it’s not that simple. Con-com is not included in the present Constitution, so a Charter amendment has to happen first before one can even consider a con-com. Now, if there’s going to be a constitutional convention or a constituent assembly, anyway, what’s the need for a con-com? Why even bother thinking about it?

Most people will move on. But Gonzales is not like most people. Instead of dropping the idea, he went on to propose a revolutionary government, to get around the fact that the con-com cannot be done except in the manner prescribed by the Constitution. That—advocating the overthrow of the present government—opens him to charges of sedition and fomenting revolution.

Fortunately for Gonzales, he is a protegé of Fr. Romeo Intengan, the guru of applied jesuitics. He can contradict himself without contradicting himself.

Gonzales can agree with Chief Justice Reynato Puno; that is, his analysis that the country is “like a volcano that is about to erupt” and still claim that the Arroyo administration has substantially improved the lives of the people. He can characterize the need to reform our electoral system as a matter of life and death without criticizing the massive cheating that happened in the 2004 presidential poll and, to a lesser degree, in the 2007 senatorial election. He can call for a revolutionary government because he’s really just asking the leaders of the present government to overthrow themselves so they can reconstitute as a transition government.

“The call of the times [is] for the three major branches of government, supported by key pillars of our society like the churches, civil society and mass movements, to agree to a transitional government respected by the armed forces.”

“GMA should be part of the revolutionary government that should also include the leadership of the two houses of Congress, the Judiciary and the Church.”

Gonzales does not say much except that his patrona should be a member of the junta. He does not say how the junta will function, how its members will be chosen, and whether the junta operates on unanimity or majority rule. He does not say who will be the commander in chief. He does not say if Congress will be abolished during the transition because if it will be abolished, then what’s the point of including the leaders of a nonexistent body?

Gonzalez has not revealed any details about his junta because the only thing that matters to him is Gloria Arroyo’s continued leadership. Never mind that she turned the country into a “volcano that is about to erupt,” she can undo what she has done. She, at the head of a transition government, can “truly empower the people to choose their leaders and shift in the system of governance to free the nation from very costly elections and from paralyzing stalemates among institutions and political forces.” I know it sounds insane, but that’s applied jesuitics.

That’s why Gonzales reminds me of an American pundit’s description of Sarah Palin, “She is like an especially ambitious dung beetle trying to push a turd up and over a hill; even if she gets it where she wants it, in the end, she’s still just been rolling shit.”

SOURCE: Life in Gloria's Enchanted Kingdom

"It will only be a waste of time and money," observes Pampanga Gov. Ed Panlilio's election lawyer Romulo Macalintal, when asked for his reaction to the Supreme Court's recent ruling allowing the recount of votes cast during the Pampanga gubernatorial elections in 2007. Former Lubao, Pampanga Mayor Lilia Pineda filed an election protest against Governor Panlilio by claiming that the erstwhile priest and his followers committed various electoral frauds.

This statement, coming no less from a veteran election lawyer, speaks a mouthful about the state of election cases in our country. It pains me to say this, but election cases in general do nothing except line the pockets of election lawyers, for in most cases the winners end up with empty victories, no to mention empty purses, because the favorable verdicts come in only after they have become moot. With the 2010 elections just less than a year to go, the election protest against Governor Panlilio is yet another example of an exercise in futility. The recounting of votes, while every protestant's dream, takes the longest and is the most contentious and tedious process in an election protest. The protestee's lawyer interposes every imaginable objection from the custody and handling of the ballot boxes to be re-opened to the reading and inclusion of ballots prejudicial to his client. Take it from Macalintal, who must've handled thousands of election cases (both high-profile and low-key) already, when he said that the recount against Panlilio is futile at this point in time.

With the slew of cases being filed every three years, the Philippines probably has the richest jurisprudence when it comes to election cases. A lot of defeated candidates with money to spare, perhaps excesses from the huge campaign war chests, cry they have been cheated after every elections even when the margins are huge. Many factors can be attributed to this phenomenon - which a visiting Canadian lawyer I once met during a legal forum found unbelieveable because he has never heard of election cases in his country. For one, our electoral system is prone to cheating and election officials are bribe-susceptible. Not only can election officials in charge of counting and canvassing of votes be bribed to guarantee victory for one candidate, but election judges to assure favorable judgments in election cases. Another equally strong, if not more powerful, reason is the insatiable quest for power, with all its illegitimate perquisites that promise luxury and indulgence to the holder. Politicians with such devious motivation (and there are lots of them unfortunately!) will have no qualms bribing their way to victory, both at the polls and courtroom.

If it's any consolation, law students and lawyers won't find a shortage of jurisprudence illuminating the election code and its companion laws that makes for interesting studies and provides guidance to our courts in disposing election cases before them. At least we would not be groping in the dark as US courts did in the wake of the 2000 US presidential elections between George W. Bush and Al Gore, when confronted with thin jurisprudence in trying to make sense of their varied election laws. But then again the dispatch with which these courts came out with a decision in the Bush v. Gore case (decided in less than a month) and the recently concluded legal contest between Norm Coleman and Al Franken for a Minnesota US Senate seat (completed in eight months) would make us weep.

The exceedingly slow pace at which election cases are resolved in the Philippines has turned election law litigation into a big joke. Although election cases are given preferences before regular courts and the election code directs their resolutions with dispatch, our legal system - with its loophole-ridden appeals process - makes it possible for parties on the losing end to prolong the litigation with the end goal of getting them through their terms before a decision is finally handed. More often than not election cases are resolved after the contested terms have expired or elections for the next terms have passed.

In my home town of Mabalacat, Pampanga, for example, when in 2001 the election protest against Mayor Marino "Boking" Morales was resolved declaring his long-time rival Anthony Dee the winner, Morales already completed his term of office. Then again in the 2007 case of Rivera III, et al. v. Comelec, et al., G.R. No. 167591 (May 9, 2007) - originally a petition to cancel the certificate of candidacy of Morales where I was one of the petitioners and counsels - the Supreme Court declared the ineligibility of Morales to run for Mayor in the 2004 elections. But this decision came only less than two months before the term for which he was found ineligible expired. There are tons of other cases bearing similar backdrops which i'm sure most of you can relate to that we need not cite them here for convenience.

Despite this sad reality, however, the Supreme Court, which is empowered by the Constitution to not only give meaning to the law but to promulgate rules of procedure in matters of litigation, has done nothing to put a stop to this abhorrence. Worse, it even sustains it by, for example, allowing wrongdoers to profit from their misdeeds by allowing "elected" candidates found to have lost the elections to keep their salaries, however miniscule they are compared to the illegitimate perquisites of their office, under the de facto officer doctrine. Would it not be more just that a usurper of public office be penalized by returning all the salaries he drew during his unlawful tenancy? The Supreme Court has also the penchant for entertaining petitions that do not establish new law and are clearly covered by established jurisprudence. Instead of declining jurisdiction and deferring to the Comelec or lower courts' rulings in cases squarely adhering to established jurisprudence, it proceeds to hear and publish full decisions in cases that could otherwise be disposed of by minute resolutions, thus adding to the delay in disposition of election cases.

Election litigations should not only be a lawyer's or politician's concern, but of every voter because it is an extension of the electoral process of choosing our leaders. They are designed - supposedly - to protect the voters' choice at the polls and ensure that those who court our votes are only those who are legally qualified to do so. But when they drag on indefinitely and are decided only when they can no longer serve their purpose or worse, when they are manipulated to the advantage of the unworthy, they subvert, and become an affront to, our sovereign will.

SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

Why is the reproduction of life political?

Fundamentalists rest easy on grounding reality on something solid, eternal, unchanging. There is security in anchoring one’s view of the world on basic principles from which spring beliefs about who we are and what we ought and ought not to do. Once these fundamentals become shaky, it is feared that identities (who we are) and morals that guide us (what we ought and ought not to do) become shaky as well.

The Reproductive Health bill is a landmark policy shift that gives women control over their body’s reproductive functions through state resources. It is revolutionary, and thus feared, on two accounts.

First, should the bill make it through Congress and approved by the Executive, the public domain will have acknowledged that reproduction, i.e. the creation of life, is not a completely private matter between mother and father. Motherhood confers to women a unique bodily function. It is often argued that because we have a uterus – ‘nature’ (i.e. God) has given us an immutable identity – that of bearing children. In other words, because we have a uterus, our biological make-up forever cements us in the mold of reproducing life. True, motherhood is a gift and fertility is revered in many cultures around the world. One then wonders why this matter is intensely political in a large and differentiated society such as ours.

Those opposing the bill have argued that the State should not dictate upon families the number of children they want to bear. Advocates have answered the bill makes no such imposition. Indeed, it does not. The bill, however, gives women a last say on what happens to their bodies. It is revolutionary in that it wrests control over the reproduction of life away from ‘nature’ (i.e. God) and men. The sexual act need not naturally result to pregnancy. This is why anti-RH bill people claim that our society will develop a ‘contraceptive culture’ and that the young will become more ‘promiscuous.’ The image of the ‘loose’ woman offends many. This moral guidepost says women ought not to engage in sexual acts with any man of her choosing in any context. The sexual act is reserved for married heterosexual partners, because, fundamentalists argue, the sole function of sex is procreation. Unpacking this moral guidepost unearths many donts and hidden punishments:

1. Only men and women can have a union blessed by the most powerful institutions in our society – the State and the Church.
2. Marriage confers rights and protection to this coupling that is denied to any other combination (men-men, women-women).
3. Sexual intercourse should occur only in a marital context. To do otherwise paints one, especially women, as immoral and therefore undesirable.
4. Sexual intercourse’s sole purpose is to reproduce life.

Unpacking all that, we get to the heart of the matter – how to control and harness reproductive labor. At the top of this structure of control are the State and Church. Their powers to constrain individual behavior discipline and order human beings in such a way as to benefit both. The State must have a last say on all things public, i.e. what concerns all of us, and the Church on all things moral, i.e. what we should and should not do.

Between these two at the top of the pyramid however, the State is a much more democratic, more participatory and less opaque structure of power. We do not get to elect who mans the Church. We do not get to argue and debate over theological matters. We do not get to negotiate moral matters as per the Catholic hierarchy.

Secondly, the bill is revolutionary (thus feared) because it pierces the sanctity of the ‘family unit.’ The Catholic Church and other fundamentalist organizations jealously guard its sanctity. They often argue that the State (or the public domain) should have no say about reproductive matters. The same argument can also be made for domestic violence. What goes on between husband and wife is a private matter. What goes on between parent and child is also a private matter. But the so-called sanctity of the domestic domain cloaks power hierarchies within the family unit. This traces back to the history of marriage as an institution where the wife is the husband’s property. Parenthood also confers ownership of children. To acknowledge that wives and children have rights independent of the societal unit to which they belong unveils the cloak of the family’s ‘sanctity.’ Women are individuals who are more than the sum of their mammary glands and uterus. Children are individuals who are more than the result of reproductive labor.

This is why the Church and other fundamentalists have fought tooth and nail against the Reproductive Health bill. It unravels the order of the ‘natural,’ that is, it unravels the order of God.

SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

"THE CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE A SYSTEM FOR SECURING THE SECRECY AND THE SANCTITY OF THE BALLOT..."

What exactly does the Constitution mean by the two terms: (1) "the secrecy of the ballot" and (2) "the sanctity of the ballot"--and how should our appreciation of them change if the country moves from the old Manual Election System to some kind of new Automated Election System? How for example can a ballot remain SECRET yet be properly and verifiably COUNTED by a public agency like the Boards of Election Inspectors, Comelec and the Congress? How can BOTH secrecy and sanctity of the ballot be secured, as required by the Constitution? In future there may not even BE a physical ballot involved in the voting process!

The 1987 Constitution provides:

ARTICLE V -- SUFFRAGE
Section 1. Suffrage may be exercised by all citizens of the Philippines not otherwise disqualified by law, who are at least eighteen years of age, and who shall have resided in the Philippines for at least one year, and in the place wherein they propose to vote, for at least six months immediately preceding the election. No literacy, property, or other substantive requirement shall be imposed on the exercise of suffrage.

Section 2. The Congress shall provide a system for securing the secrecy and sanctity of the ballot as well as a system for absentee voting by qualified Filipinos abroad.
The Congress shall also design a procedure for the disabled and the illiterates to vote without the assistance of other persons. Until then, they shall be allowed to vote under existing laws and such rules as the Commission on Elections may promulgate to protect the secrecy of the ballot.

"THE CONGRESS SHALL PROVIDE A SYSTEM FOR SECURING THE SECRECY AND THE SANCTITY OF THE BALLOT..."

What exactly does the Constitution mean by the two terms: (1) "the secrecy of the ballot" and (2) "the sanctity of the ballot"--and how should our appreciation of them change if the country moves from the old Manual Election System to some kind of new Automated Election System? How for example can a ballot remain SECRET yet be properly and verifiably COUNTED by a public agency like the Boards of Election Inspectors, Comelec  and the Congress?   How can BOTH secrecy and sanctity of the ballot be secured, as required by the Constitution?  In future there may not even BE a physical ballot involved in the voting process!

I think that these two terms refer to two different aspects of the INFORMATION that is contained in a valid voting BALLOT namely: (1) Which VOTER cast the ballot; and (2) Which CANDIDATES were chosen on the ballot.

The SECRECY of the ballot refers to the IDENTITY of the VOTER who cast a given ballot. There must be a reasonable expectation that this information cannot easily or readily be determined from an inspection of the ballot alone.

Meanwhile, the SANCTITY of the ballot means that it ought to be properly counted and canvassed and the candidates chosen receive the intended vote.

Under the Manual Election System that has been used in all past elections, a paper ballot must be filled out by the Voter with the NAMES of the candidates (this, despite the explicit 1987 provision that literacy is not a requirement for the exercise of suffrage.) The ballots cast at a given precinct are then read (usually by persons many of the voters will know to have been their school teachers) and a tally of all the votes is made to produce the Precinct Election Return.  Theoretically, the identity of the voter casting a given ballot is kept "secret"  since the voter does not literally sign the ballot.  But in most cases of course, this is a legal and practical fiction.    About 250,000 precincts (max 200 registered voters each) are required to service about 50 million potential voters for 2010.

In the case of the Manual Election System that has been in place since time immemorialthere is of course no identification of the voter on the ballot. However, since each voter is obligated to write out the names of each candidate, and the local school teachers who know everyone from infancy (and likely their handwritten script) are manning the Board of Election Inspectors, the concept of voter identity secrecy could easily be a legal fiction in most cases!

On the other hand, the sanctity of the ballot under the Manual Election System is notoriously subject to addition, subtraction, multiplication, division and every imaginative genre of dagdag-bawas known to Garci, Bedol and that shady ilk of election operators during a month long process of municipal, provincial and national canvass.

Comes now the concept of the AUTOMATED ELECTION. How are reasonable Filipinos to construe the concepts of SECRECY and SANCTITY of the BALLOT under this new SYSTEM?

In the upcoming May, 2010 elections, an automated election system will enable registered voters to MARK selections from a LIST of candidates on the printed paper ballot. The ballot is fed into a Precinct Count Optical Scanner (PCOS) which photographs it; programmatically interprets the voter's choices; encrypts, registers and stores the raw data in preparation for CANVAS, TRANSMISSION, and ARCHIVING. The PCOS will also produce a RECEIPT for the voter's records.

The following analogy is useful: the ballot is like a set of email messages, one for each candidate selected by the voter. The voter is the sender of the email messages and the candidates chosen are the recipients of the message.

Thus the "delivery system" which is to be provided by the Congress and executed by Comelec must efficiently and accurately deliver all possible 50 million email message ballots in 2010 to their intended recipient's "mailboxes" maintained for local candidates at the Comelec HQ and the Congress in joint session assembled for the national canvass. At the same time, for any given message, the identity of the sender must not be easily or readily determinable from the ballot alone.

May I suggest that there is a well-established technology which can fulfill the Constitutional guarantees on secrecy and sanctity of the democratic ballot that is available to a suitably engineered and implemented automated election system. I speak of techniques involving the use of PUBLIC KEY CRYPTOGRAPHY to guard both the voter-sender's identity from public view, and ensure that only the intended candidate-recipients can actually receive the ballot-message!

Are such systems even possible in the real, practical world?  You bet! In fact take a look at this news item on PhysOrg from the Harvard University School of Engineering and Applied Science, which describes a recently implemented "auditable voting system" called Helios that is a kind of ideal model for an automated election system:

 "Helios allows any participant to verify that their ballot was correctly captured, and any observer to verify that all captured ballots were correctly tallied," said Adida. "We call this open-audit voting because the complete auditing process is now available to any observer. This revolutionary approach to elections has been described in the literature for more than 25 years, yet this is the first real-world open-audit election of this magnitude and impact of outcome."

The verifiable voting system, available as open-source/free software, implements advanced cryptographic techniques to maintain ballot secrecy while providing a mathematical proof that the election tally was correctly computed.

Helios relies upon public key homomorphic encryption, a method where a public key is used to encrypt a message (in this case, a vote); messages can be combined under the covers of encryption (in this case, tallying the votes); and multiple independent private keys are required to decrypt the message (in this case, the election tally).

In an election, Helios works as follows:

• first, each voter receives a tracking number for his/her vote and the vote is encrypted with the election public key before it leaves the voter's browser;

• second, with the tracking number, a voter can then verify that their ballot was correctly captured by the voting system, which publishes a list of all tracking numbers prior to tallying; and

• finally, the voter, or any observer including election watchers from outside the election, can verify that these tracking numbers (the encrypted votes) were tallied appropriately. The election results contain a mathematical proof of the tally that cannot be "faked" even with the use of powerful computers.

"Because the tallying happens under the covers of encryption, the entire verification process is done without revealing the contents of each individual vote," explained Adida "Moreover, by using Helios, voters no longer need to blindly trust those supervising the election, as officials must provide mathematical proofs that everything was done appropriately."

The automated election system that Comelec will use in the May 2010 elections makes many similar claims of capability to secure ballot secrecy and sanctity, although the implementation is necessarily different for an election with 50 million voters spread out over 250,000 precincts, than what may be possible at Harvard University!  However, it will be noted that public key encryption techniques are at the heart of the SmartMatic/TIM consortium's proferred system and thus certainly has the potential to be evolved and developed into a mathematically secure voting system.

Cryptography is indeed the KEY to securing the rights of suffrage: ballot secrecy and sanctity! 

The Contract between Comelec and the technology provider, SmartMatic/TIM is to be found here on the Comelec website.

Key Dates on the Comelec 2010 Election Calendar are here.

SmartMatic Corp's Home Page contains a wealth of information about the company that will provide the historic first automated election system for the Philippines.  There is a Philippines Media Kit on the site.  Although SmartMatic has a track record in conducting elections, it reveals on the website that it has actually counted only about 150 million votes in all the elections it has automated.   The May 2010 elections could involve as many as 50 million Filipino voters.  

A successful automated election in the Philippines is clearly in the long-term interest of the company called SmartMatic, for it could unlock a rich market for automated election services in democracies all over the world.   A bad election in which the automated system is implicated in fraud or God forbid, a failure of election, is NOT in SmartMatic's interest.

I believe this is a key consideration in how pundits and bloggers especially ought to see SmartMatic.  Comelec of course is another matter!

---

REFERENCE LINKS:

SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

I am a member of the generation born during the years of the Apollo space program. Growing up in the 1970s in science class and in science fair projects, we were building model rockets. Dad bought me a telescope when he went to the US for a visit in 1977. The nights in Quezon City then were dark enough to use a telescope to see the rings of Saturn or Jupiter's Red Spot. The in thing in science then was spaceflight. Even the Marcos science establishment fantasized about the country and its New Society being advanced enough to launch its own rockets and put up its own satellite. This was at the height of the Marcos regime. I will discuss the Marcos fantasy of rockets and satellites a bit later. It is not as fantastic as it seems.

In the 1980s manned space flight took a backseat when NASA realized that by sending robotic probes, like Voyager, we can get the same science for less bucks and less chance of people being lost in space. The space shuttle was sent aloft in 1981 or thereabouts. Russia's Mir space station was launched in 1986. In the same year just before the fateful February Snap election, the Challenger blew up like a giant kwitis and an ailing Ferdinand Marcos commented on the disaster. Two weeks later, Marcos was history.

The question that bugs space fans like me (and all the Apollo astronauts) is that how come the US never went back to the Moon? As for the Soviet Union, it realized that it can't keep up with capitalism and settled for a space station program using 1960s Soyuz derivatives (which still works). The USA had the money but the 1980s Reagan years were an age of waiting for the Soviet Union to collapse (which it did). Together with the communist collapse, went the Soviet space program. Its copycat shuttle "Buran" went to space on remote control only once. Russia reincarnated the space program by 1) selling launch time to the Americans and 2) space tourists on Mir.

Today a recession hit America and a resurging Russia are considering going to the Moon on the way to Mars. America needs a spaced out distraction and Russia knows that now it has the cash to finally beat the Americans. America may find the cash, but I don't know whether doing a JFK is enough to boost the morale of jaded Americans. As Obama's "change that matters" begins to sound like "change that hardly mattered"(and Oprah and other talk show hosts begin to eat their words.), Obama may do a JFK to boost his sagging image and send someone to Mars. A politically inclusive and correct publicity stunt is to send a black American who may first set foot on the red planet.

But another Space Race is too expensive for Obama and Medvedev to contemplate alone and since the shuttle will be retired, NASA and the Russian Space Agenc will have to use 3 stage rockets and Russia's dependable Soyuz, once more to send supplies to the International Space Station (whose scientific value is hotly debated). It is likely that the Russians and the Europeans will play a large role in the Mars mission.

And planting the Stars and Stripes or the Russian tricolor would be the most un-PC thing to do on Mars. It is likely that an environmentalist "Earth Flag" will flutter in a Martian dust storm.

Readers may not know it and wags may laugh about it but the Republic of the Philippines has its own space program. It is under DOST direction and focuses on remote sensing and space based research on monitoring the Philippine environment. The Pinoy space dream is to have out own natural resource sensing satellite. However we don't have any launch capability (hey wags! Don't mention "kwitis" from Bocaue!) and thus the program surely has security implications. Who is going to launch our satellite? The Americans?, Russians?, Europeans? Chinese?, Japanese?, Indians?, Pakistanis? or the Dear Leader in Pyongyang?

Of course all these parties will do it for a fee. How much could the fee be? It could be that these parties may demand that we give them some remotely sensed data about our dwindling natural resources. The security issues are very obvious. Our own satellite can track down those pesky Abu Sayaff and zap them with a cruise missile. Marcos even in his dictatorial days realized the advantages of space. And Prez Gloria (who according to PDI's Amando Doronila is the A student in Marcos 101!) I assume realizes the same potentials and advantages.

One thing hindering countrywide research on the Philippine environment is the cost of remotely sensed data. For example, my research project staff inquired how much the cost of the latest image of Quezon City and this was quoted at 1 million pesos! The French and the Americans own the images. Some "freebies" may be obtained from NASA, ESA and the US Navy but these are usually of low resolution. In many cases we have to content ourselves with Google Earth!

Thus DOST has called for space technology applications research proposals in the last two years or so. Two national conferences have been hosted and I attended one. In these conferences it is obvious that a space program will help us protect our resources and our national security. How the Philippines develops its space program is likely to be in cooperation with space nations in the region. Here the Chinese and Russians have shown interest. So far I haven't heard any peep from NASA aside from their call for our scientists to help them put up a aerosol monitoring station in the Philippines. Since this has military applications, the security aspect is real.

SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

This was Monday night's telecast on ANC Cable TV of The Explainer with Manolo Quezon. We talked about Education, in particular Science education, teachers and the idea of privatizing Basic Education...Watch it all! The program's show page on the Archive The Explainer July 13 2009contains several downloadable and streamable file formats, including for use on Iphone/IpodTouch platforms.

[Courtesy of The Rizalist Press Multimedia! Join The Rizalist Press on Facebook!]

SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

“Aaminin kong may pagkukulang kami sa intelligence community, pero lahat na intelligence community sa buong mundo ay nasisingitan din ng mga masasamang loob. E, mas malaki ang budget nila nasisingitan pa rin, at mas malaki ang mga bombang sumasabog sa kanila. [I will admit we are inept but so are other intelligence agencies in the world.] ” —National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales on why he won’t resign despite being caught off-guard by the recent spate of bombings in ARMM



The Palace said the Sunday morning bomb that killed five and wounded dozens in Cotabato City bore “the signature of the special operations group of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front [MILF].”

In the same breath, the Palace pointed out that the matter is still under investigation. So maybe it’s the MILF. Or maybe it’s not.

Meanwhile, the opposition is not doing anybody any good raising alarms that the bombings are part of a Palace plot to declare martial law. They have no proof.

Without evidence, warnings about an elaborate Palace shadow play involving terror bombings are nothing more than shouts of “Theater!” in a crowded fire.

Here’s what I mean:

“We’re only two weeks away from Mrs. Arroyo’s last Sona [State of the Nation Address] and we’re seeing a spate of despicable bombings in Mindanao. It doesn’t take a genius to piece the two together to surmise that something bizarre is going on,” said a leader of the opposition.

In the same breath, he said he was not discounting the MILF’s role in the bombings. So maybe it’s the Palace or maybe it’s not.



The public will just have to be patient. It may take a while before it becomes clear whom the Palace boob was alluding to when he urged everyone “not to yield the day to political harlots who wish to profit from the unsettled situation.”

Seriously, there is too much lawless violence in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). There have been 38 terror bombings since January. The governors of North and South Cotabato said people in their area have started to arm themselves.

Gloria Arroyo must prevent the “unsettled situation” from deteriorating into anarchy. She must put a stop to the bombings and bring the perpetrators to justice. And she has the means to do it.

The Constitution says, “The President shall be the Commander-in-Chief of all armed forces of the Philippines and whenever it becomes necessary, he may call out such armed forces to prevent or suppress lawless violence, invasion or rebellion.”

What is Gloria waiting for, more bombings and more mangled bodies?

The opposition, for its part, must change tack. They must urge Gloria to declare martial law in ARMM and give her all the tools she needs to deal with the terror bombings. “Give her enough rope…” as the old saying goes.

How much time does she need, three months? Fine. Does she want to eavesdrop on all communications within ARMM? Fine. Does she want to monitor the movement of funds in that area? Fine. Does she want warrantless searches? Fine, but no suspension of free speech, no torture and no salvagings.

Give her everything she says she needs so that if she fails to stop the bombings and to apprehend perpetrators, she will have no excuse.

Box her in. If she can’t make martial law work in ARMM, she can’t claim she can make it work anywhere else.

On the other hand, if she stops the bombings and apprehends the bombers, then she has no more reason for martial law, in ARMM or anywhere else.

Either way, whether she succeeds or fails, her option of placing the entire country under martial law because of bombings is off the table.

Hopefully that will put a stop to all the blather about shadow plays. And we can now focus on real issues like where to jail Bonnie and Clyde when the time comes.




SOURCE: Life in Gloria's Enchanted Kingdom

Reading the papers last weekend, I see it appears that Philippine Star columnist and Charter Change advocate Carmen Pedrosa have either chosen not to respond to my letter to the editor regarding her two counts of plagiarism in her column (one in 2006, and the other last June 20), or are still deciding on what course of action to take. I hope it’s the latter, because I don’t think she, or the reading public, should ignore the fact that she has been less than honest about what she writes, considering that she has continued to question the credibility of those who protest or oppose Charter Change. Until she owns up to her dishonesty, she has no right to question others’ credibility, when her own credibility is in itself in question.

Of course, that doesn’t stop her from continuing to do so. In her column yesterday, she castigates U.S. Ambassador Kirstie Kenney for having stated that “the US would be concerned if the election were postponed,” and then categorizes the statement as a threat. Be that as it may, Charter Change isn’t the only possible reason why the elections would be postponed, considering the current situation in the country today. It is a continuing perception that President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo has intentions of prolonging her stay in power. So Ambassador Kenney’s statement could also be a warning to the President and her lapdogs against taking illegal measures to prolong that stay.

Pedrosa seems to think that Kenney is speaking her own mind on the 2010 elections, but it should be noted that the US Ambassador is an emissary of the American President, so it is unlikely that Kenney issued that statement independent of US intentions. Kenney’s statements on the 2010 most likely echo the will of the powers-that-be in Washington.

Pedrosa also continues to label those against Charter Change as oligarchic and foreign-sponsored. Of course, the House of Representatives, which is pushing for Charter Change, only has the country’s best interests at heart when they voted for HR 1109, which calls for the House to convene itself as a constituent assembly. If you’re willing to believe that, there’s a get-rich scheme that I’d like you to try out.

The main reason why Charter Change cannot be pursued at this time is that the President, being distrusted and unpopular, does not have the necessary public approval to push this agenda. The House, which Pedrosa supports, is every bit as elitist and oligarchic as the anti-Charter Change movement supposedly is, if not even more so. A number of our Congressmen are in power because they have manipulated the electoral system to install themselves in Congress, using the time-honored method of guns, goons, and gold. And this is the august body which will initiate changes in the Constitution? Please.

Unless our countrymen are properly educated about the Constitution and their social and political rights, it really doesn’t matter what system of government we have, because the ruling elite will make sure that the playing field is uneven enough to maintain their stranglehold on the nation. If it’s going to be the same bunch of elitists, scions of political dynasties, and general idiots which will make up whatever new legislative body will be formed under Charter Change, then there will be no lasting change, only the same old song with new packaging.

As for Pedrosa and her plagiarism, I'm unsure as to how to deal with this issue. I'm welcome to suggestions.

As for the articles themselves, here are the links: "Let us move on, but where?", and "Gridlock rears its ugly head".

This post also appears in Daily Musings.

SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

DJB is in a crusade to bring back science as a distinct subject in the early grades of the basic education curriculum (BEC). Since 2002, science has been integrated with Makabayan and English. For Makabayan there are these subject areas: Social Studies, Music and Arts, Technology and Livelihood, and Values Education.

DJB's current crusade should let us think about the problems of teaching science in basic education. Dina Ocampo et al's paper (2009) (also a UP Centennial lecture) on reforms that don't transform in the DepEd should be a requisite backgrounder on dealing with the problem of basic science education.

Despite the extensive discussion on the various surveys on Philippine educational reform and the vexed issue of language of instruction, one important point in this paper is that we haven't effected a shift from structure based to constructivist based approaches to education. Here lies the nuts and bolts of the post-modern debate on science education. What is better? Content based sci-ed (structure based) or inquiry based sci-ed (constructivist)? Recent pedagogical approaches in the US and Commonwealth countries point to a concept based approach that rapidly moves on to an experimental hands on based approach. This is supported by some research but remains controversial.

Obviously the latter choice will require extensive infrastructure in the provision of science labs in elementary and high schools. Even in the USA, there has been a trend to de-emphasize science in basic education by reducing the core subjects to earth/physical sciences, biology and chemistry. This is partially due to the expense of providing these programs. There is also a trend to integrate the sciences along a more humanistic and social studies theme. In the UK upper level basic education programmes may have 21st science as an option for their school leavers certificate.

I am quite aware of this first hand when I taught at Lousiana State University. Thus the concern that the United States is losing its competitive edge in science has some basis. In the USA, the integration of science along humanistic lines occurs in junior high. Physics has been the first casualty here and universities and colleges are quite worried that students get into science and engineering with not much physics to begin with!

I am no expert nor a practitioner in basic science education but we in higher education get the products of basic education. The leveling process in introductory college science courses includes removing out misconceptions due to previous thinking or views of the world. In my Philippine experience of college science teaching these misconceptions often have a religious and cultural/superstition basis. This BTW cuts across social classes. The rich have their own unscientific ideas and the poor theirs. The common between these are religious in origin and class based misconceptions persist especially on human biology and health. The recent study by Professor JR Torres of Rizal Technological University on astronomy concepts is proof that these misconceptions persist.

It is certain that inquiry based science should include factual knowledge since it is impossible to do experiments on all basic science concepts. A good grounding on both the experimental and factual bases of science is necessary in metacognition in which students begin to integrate and form their own scientfic theories. This starts in high school and further developed in college/university. In the MSc and PhD levels, this is further honed. However we notice that even at the MSc level, we have to teach science the undergrad way since students haven't developed the basic metacognition competencies!

In the US, UK, EU, Japan, and China, science is taught as a single subject from the early grades to at least in high school where the basic sciences are taught as separate subjects. The trend to teach science along humanistic and social studies lines risks it being tainted with ideological bias. This is something that isn't part of a scientific culture and will retard scientific development Teaching basic science in Makabayan risks this and may not develop thinking skills for a globalized technology driven environment.


SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

CIA Director Leon Panetta must be thanking his lucky stars.

Imagine the relief of discussing weighty and surely less stressful affairs of state with Southeast Asian leaders, including an equally pleased Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, instead of having to face the still developing firestorm in the U.S. Capitol over how the Central Intelligence Agency had deliberately lied to American lawmakers about the torture of suspected terrorists in Iraq during the Bush administration.

Mr. Panetta’s worries are, of course, his own and our being 10,000 miles away certainly gives us little proximity to the scandal.

But nosy that I am, I was struck by a phrase in the news account about how 7 American congressmen revealed the CIA’s lying ways:

On June 26, seven Democrats on the committee — Anna Eshoo (Calif.), John Tierney (Mass.), Rush Holt (N.J.), Mike Thompson (Calif.), Alcee Hastings (Fla.) and Jan Schakowsky (Ill.) [Update: I received an early version of the letter. Rep. Adam Smith (Wash.) also signed it] — wrote to Panetta, “Recently you testified that you have determined that top CIA officials have concealed significant actions from all Members of Congress, and misled Members for a number of years from 2001 to this week.” The letter — which doesn’t explain what those “significant actions” concerned* — asks that Panetta “publicly correct” his May 15 statement that it isn’t CIA “policy or practice to mislead Congress.” TWI acquired a copy of the letter, which comes after CQ reported that committee chairman Silvestre Reyes (D-Texas) also nebulously stated that CIA “affirmatively lied” to the committee.

http://washingtonindependent.com/50111/six-members-of-congress-say-panetta-testified-that-cia-misled-congress

Affirmative lying!

This is something for language maven William Safire to dissect.

But herE at home Filipino politicians can proudly crow they are past masters in the art of affirmative lying that puts even Goebbels to shame.

Not far behind are presidential and military spokesmen, albeit several rungs lower.

Pinoys have long become street-wise and are already incredulous when they are treated to none-too-convincing presentations and avowals of innocence and glowing news that too-good to be true.

With May 10, 2010 make sure your BS detectors’ batteries are fully charged with spares at the ready. :D

A parting shot: when our security officials were briefing Mr. Panetta at Malacanang yesterday how much, you think, was unvarnished truth of affirmative lying?

One of the medical staff who attended to Gloria has an interesting story to tell..

Dr. Guanzon briefed President Gloria on the procedure before he put her under general anesthesia.
“Ma’am we will remove those lumps so we can do a biospy” said Dr. Guanzon.

“Okey dokey. Is it going to hurt?”

“No ma’am. You will be under general anesthesia.”

“Good. Anything else?”

“Opoh. We may have to remove your implants if we see that they are leaking.”

“Hay naku doc, if you remove my implants people might notice. I have a SONA coming up pa naman.”

And so the last thing on Gloria’s mind before she was put to sleep were her implants….

So when she woke up, she was still thinking about her implants and the first slurred words out of her mouth were, “Yun dagdag? Yun dagdag?”



SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

You know how the ConAss people like Luis Villafuerte and Prospero Nograles are desperately trying to create a "justiciable controversy" in the Supreme Court that can be used for the dastardly end of perpetuating their Mistress in power?  They should take lessons from Lawyer Harry Roque!

I am glad that Comelec has just signed a contract with Smartmatic/TIM to automate the 2010 elections. Warts and all, I think that this is a necessary and historic first step towards a whole new deal when it comes to democratic elections in the Philippines, which are a big fat joke on the electorates.  But the chances of automated elections being cancelled in 2010 is apparently so high in the opinion of the principals that the  winning bidder reportedly insisted on a contract provision, agreed to by Comelec, that the vendor would be paid for its systems and services even if automation is called off.  

Many observers are convinced that the TRAPOS (traditional politicians) and manual election cheating operators,  desperately want to, and can still scuttle election automation and force the usual manual election in 2010, so we are a long, long way off from a hoped for clean, honest and automated election that does not require over a month for the results to be announced while they are cooked.

Strangely enough, the prospect of killing automation is being bolstered most strongly by the most unlikely people. Consider for example the suit by lawyer and UP Law School Prof. HARRY ROQUE to stop the deal, filed in the Supreme Court (SCoRP) just 24 hours before the contract signing.   Although no TRO was issued to stop the signing, SCoRP can now sit on and possibly pull out this very lawsuit and simply kill off the automation deal between now and the 2010 elections.  We should not forget the Decision in 2004 which stopped Ben Abalos' Automatic Counting Machines project, ITF v. Comelec--which could just as easily happen again as "Roque v. Comelec."

Harry Roque has effectively handed the Palace a Magic Bullet with which to stop automated elections in 2010 dead in its tracks.  Please note that it was very important that this suit was filed not by the likes of Oliver "Lolo" Lozano or other known Palace toady,  but by someone just like Harry Roque, an ardent Administration critic.  As it is a plea for certiorari and prohibition,  SCoRP assumes original jurisdiction, can issue a TRO at any time and for virtually any reason (such as to hear oral arguments or testimonies of experts and amici curiae)--all of which could seriously, if not fatally  compromise the implementation. SCoRP could even conceivably micromanage the implementation, allowing for example partial implementation, thus allowing manual election fraud to occur in the usual places, like ARMM and Mindanao.   The salient point of course is that the Court can decide to do nothing until it decides to do something--thanks to Harry Roque!   

Just WHEN the Court does something is almost as important as the nature of its very rulings. Thus, what Harry Roque might have thought of as his duty as a lawyer to do -- to question the validity of a Public Contract affecting elections themselves -- turns out to be a double-edged sword that the powers-that-be which he so ardently disdains and opposes.  They are only too glad to accept such a weapon from him and wield it with a swift and merciless granting of  Harry Roque's prayer that election automation not be implemented in 2010.

This news can only be cheered on by the likes of Virgilio Garcillano, Lintang Bedol and their coterie of manual election fixers--as well as aforementioned traditional politicos--who can all plan the usual Dirty Tricks of Dagdag Bawas  Their black hearts can only be gladdened to see that those doing the Dirty Work for them against automated elections are not exactly Palace stooges or Congress toadies, but bona fide divas and doyens of Civil Society--the dahlinks of Main and Blog Stream Media, the creme de la creme of the intellectual Opposition!

SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

In the July 9 New York Times article "Fuel for a Coup: Perils of Latin America's Oversized Military," Nobel Prize winner, Costa Rican President Oscar Arias wrote that strong militaries in Latin America have paved the way for military solutions to political conflicts in the region. He observed that the coup d'état that led to the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya is something that is not unexpected in a region that "continues to view armed forces as the final arbiter of social conflicts."

While the Philippines is not as extravagant as Latin America when it comes to military spending, since the days of martial law our armed forces have increasingly taken an active role in trying to resolve our nation's manifold problems. We thought that after EDSA I the re-branding (from AFP to New AFP) and reorganization of the armed forces would eventually lead to its depolitization. But as history would have it, coup after coup have wracked the nascent administration of then President Corazon Aquino.

Yet again under the present administration, the military continued its political involvement in seeking solutions to our socio-political problems during the so-called Oakwood Mutiny despite repeated indoctrination at the nation's premiere military academy and among the ranks of active duty military personnel against military adventurism. Then there was the Manila Pen incident. The leader of Oakwood, Navy Lieutenant Antonio Trillanes IV, would later on be popularly elected as senator even while he was behind bars.

Coup d'état as a means of achieving change is, aside from being a crime punishable by law, without a doubt unconstitutional. Not even the present constitutional provision defining the role of the armed forces as the protector of the people can legally justify the military's role in acting as the arbiter of the country's political conflicts. That provision was meant to highlight the military's role in protecting the people against external threats or aggression, and not as a prescription against a corrupt government, however appealing the idea may be to others.

Arias says the imbalance between Latin America's fragile democracies and strong militaries, with the scales tipping toward the latter, has much to do with the military taking an active role on the political landscape. The Honduran experience shows that when Zelaya committed flagrant disregard of the country's Constitution and defiance of the high court's ruling, the military decided to resolve the impasse by arresting Zelaya and whisking him out of the country. The Honduran military's swift action did decisively what the Supreme Court and Congress failed to do: to immediately stop the illegal actions of an abusive president.

The failure of our democratic institutions in maintaining political stability and reigning in of official excesses have left our people looking for answers elsewhere. Idealists in the military have seen this as an impetus for involvement in transforming our society by resorting to extra-constitutional measures. As citizens equally disgusted by the worsening problems in the country, these soldiers follow the route where they have been trained well in seeking the much needed change. And for a country that is yet to see a truly military rule, Marcos's martial law notwithstanding, hard line military idealists would find the idea of a military junta as a seductive goal, especially so that previous administration changes have only resulted in installing new faces into power without resolving the country's fundamental problems. The guiding political aphorism, it would seem, is that when democracy fails force becomes a necessity.

To be sure, the armies of other countries are much more powerful and highly trained compared to those of Latin America and the Philippines. But we do not see the United States or United Kingdom being threatened by coup d'états. The reason is their democratic institutions and processes do not fail them. Sure there are failings here and there, but not on a scale as grand as in our country. And solutions are invariably found. In the Philippines we've seen how our democratic processes and institutions have been repeatedly mocked by those in power: until now not a single verdict of conviction has been handed down against the former First Lady Imelda Marcos despite the plethora of cases brought against her, she and her family have reacquired political power, public officals who only earn miniscule salaries continue to live lavish lifestyles, we have a president who committed an act comparable to or even worse than Watergate but continues to remain in power, scandals after scandals are being heaped upon us by government officials who remain unscathed by the scalpel of justice, etc.

For as long as we do not fully mature as a democracy, where our democratic institutions and processes are revered as inviolable, members of the military establishment clamoring for change will continue to see their relevance in instituting political reforms. As long as our politicians continue to tinker with our Constitution and unabashedly violate the law, our institutions fail to cut down official excesses and public officials defy the people's will, the military will remain an active participant of political change.

SOURCE: Philippine Commentary

This should interest culture studies people. When Elvis kicked the bucket in 1977, people were confused and a spate of Elvis sightings were reported that continues on to the 21st century. The scientific explanation for this is that Elvis impersonators flourish everywhere. In the Philippines, you just have to see RJ! Jacko is rightly or wrongly compared to the King or Rock and Roll. But we have had a few reports of Jacko post-mortem sightings. One hospital janitor is convinced that he saw Jacko slip out of the UCLA Medical Center ER dressed as a nun!

Elvis and Jacko are American cultural phenomena. But Elvis kicked the bucket in a time when the fastest way to get news was through satellite broadcast (in the Philippines it was mainly by microwave) or if by print through TELEX (If you are from generation Z you will ask "What is that?"). Fax machines I believe had been invented but weren't in commercial use.

Looking at the history of Elvis sightings, very few have claimed to see his ghost, but the real Elvis.

Wacko Jacko kicked the bucket in the age of 1) Internet, 2) Facebook, 3) Twitter, 4) SMS and my mom (who's turning 80) got the SMS less than 5 minutes after the death was announced. Imagine being greeted at breakfast "Michael Jackson is dead!" In other words, we got the news almost instantly.

Which leaves us a question, why do people now see his ghost? Do ghosts come out of the Internet via YouTube?

In the Medieval ages, people saw ghosts since they were 1) hungry, 2) have eaten ergot, 3) scared by the Church, or 4) drunk. In this post-modern but still secular age, we shouldn't see ghosts.

Now cloning mammals has been a reality for more than 20 years. Success in cloning your dog and cat is no longer news. I did expect some wacko to suggest that we resurrect Jacko as a clone. Before this wackiness was limited to movies such as "Boys from Brazil" where Dr Mengele tried to clone the Fuhrer! Maybe the whole idea of cloning Jacko is extremely bizarre that fans won't even contemplate it. I really did expect someone to steal his nose and clone this (oooooops that's the plot of Woody Allen's 1973 comedy "Sleeper"!) But still I wonder do the fans have a boundary they won't cross? While Jacko fans won't be thrilled by impersonators, they probably will be by the ghost!

The Medieval still lives. The Funk of 1000 years and every ghoul will seal your doom!

For the convenience of Philippine Commentary readers, I am publishing here the FULL TEXT of the Philippines Anti-Terrorism Law, Republic Act 9372, the Human Security Act of 2007.

The passage of this law should have marked the transition to LAW ENFORCEMENT as a principal means of dealing with terrorist threats on the ground, as opposed to a pure WAR on TERRORISM. Instead the issue was so politicized that the law crafted was LAMED AT BIRTH by so-called human rights activists who succeeded only in perpetuating an ineffective military strategy against guerilla insurgents virtually indistinguishable from the masses there.

Here also are numerous Philippine Commentaries on the topic of terrorism.

Related Commentary:

We Are All Abu Sayyaf Now!
Understanding the Definition of Terrorism under the Human Security Act
GMA's Gift to Bin Laden on Sept. 11: A Jihadi Homeland in Mindanao
Extrajudicial Beheadings
Wiretapping Forbidden Against Doctors, Patients, Lawyers, Clients, Journalists, Sources
The Separate Departments of Justice and Diplomacy
Ancestral Domain Regime or BANGSAMOROSTAN?

---

Republic of the Philippines

CONGRESS OF THE PHILIPPINES

THIRTEENTH CONGRESS

Third Regular Session

REPUBLIC ACT NO. 9372

AN ACT

TO SECURE THE STATE AND PROTECT OUR PEOPLE FROM TERRORISM

Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the Philippines in Congress assembled:

SECTION 1. Short Title. – This Act shall henceforth be known as the “Human Security Act of 2007.”

SEC. 2. Declaration of Policy. – It is declared a policy of the State to protect life, liberty, and property from acts of terrorism, to condemn terrorism as inimical and dangerous to the national security of the country and to the welfare of the people, and to make terrorism a crime against the Filipino people, against humanity, and against the law of nations.

In the implementation of the policy stated above, the State shall uphold the basic rights and fundamental liberties of the people as enshrined in the constitution.

The State recognizes that the fight against terrorism requires a comprehensive approach, comprising political, economic, diplomatic, military, and legal means duly taking into account the root causes of terrorism without acknowledging these as justifications for terrorist and/or criminal activities. Such measures shall include conflict management and post-conflict peace-building, addressing the roots of conflict by building state capacity and promoting equitable economic development.

Nothing in this Act shall be interpreted as a curtailment, restriction or diminution of constitutionally recognized powers of the executive branch of the government. It is to be understood, however, that the exercise of the constitutionally recognized powers of the executive department of the government shall not prejudice respect for human rights which shall be absolute and protected at all times.

SEC. 3. Terrorism. – Any person who commits an act punishable under any of the following provisions of the Revised Penal Code:

1. Article 122 (Piracy in General and Mutiny in the High Seas or in the Philippine Waters);
2. Article 134 (Rebellion or Insurrection);
3. Article 134-a (Coup d‘Etat), including acts committed by private persons;
4. Article 248 (Murder);
5. Article 267 (Kidnapping and Serious Illegal Detention);
6. Article 324 (Crimes Involving Destruction,

or under

1. Presidential Decree No. 1613 (The Law on Arson);
2. Republic Act No. 6969 (Toxic Substances and Hazardous and Nuclear Waste Control Act of 1990);
3. Republic Act No. 5207, (Atomic Energy Regulatory and Liability Act of 1968);
4. Republic Act No. 6235 (Anti-Hijacking Law);
5. Presidential Decree No. 532 (Anti-piracy and Anti-highway Robbery Law of 1974); and,
6. Presidential Decree No. 1866, as amended (Decree Codifying the Laws on Illegal and Unlawful Possession, Manufacture, Dealing in, Acquisition or Disposition of Firearms, Ammunitions or Explosives)

thereby sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace, in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall be guilty of the crime of terrorism and shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment, without the benefit of parole as provided for under Act No. 4103, otherwise known as the Indeterminate Sentence Law, as amended.

SEC. 4. Conspiracy to Commit Terrorism. – Persons who conspire to commit the crime of terrorism shall suffer the penalty of forty (40) years of imprisonment.

There is conspiracy when two or more persons come to an agreement concerning the commission of the crime of terrorism as defined in Section 3 hereof and decide to commit the same.

SEC. 5. Accomplice. – Any person who, not being a principal under Article 17 of the Revised Penal Code or a conspirator as defined in Section 4 hereof, cooperates in the execution of either the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism by previous or simultaneous acts shall suffer the penalty of from seventeen (17) years, four (4) months one day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 6. Accessory. – Any person who, having knowledge of the commission of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, and without having participated therein, either as principal or accomplice under Articles 17 and 18 of the Revised Penal Code, takes part subsequent to its commission in any of the following manner: (a) by profiting himself or assisting the offender to profit by the effects of the crime; (b) by concealing or destroying the body of the crime, or the effects, or instruments thereof, in order to prevent its discovery; (c) by harboring, concealing, or assisting in the escape of the principal or conspirator of the crime, shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

Notwithstanding the above paragraph, the penalties prescribed for accessories shall not be imposed upon those who are such with respect to their spouses, ascendants, descendants, legitimate, natural, and adopted brothers and sisters, or relatives by affinity within the same degrees, with the single exception of accessories falling within the provisions of subparagraph (a).

SEC. 7. Surveillance of Suspects and Interception and Recording of Communications. – The provisions of Republic Act No. 4200 (Anti-wire Tapping Law) to the contrary notwithstanding, a police or law enforcement official and the members of his team may, upon a written order of the Court of Appeals, listen to, intercept and record, with the use of any mode, form, kind or type of electronic or other surveillance equipment or intercepting and tracking devices, or with the use of any other suitable ways and means for that purpose, any communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words between members of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons or of any person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.

Provided, That surveillance, interception and recording of communications between lawyers and clients, doctors and patients, journalists and their sources and confidential business correspondence shall not be authorized.

SEC. 8. Formal Application for Judicial Authorization. – The written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals to track down, tap, listen to, intercept, and record communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words of any person suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall only be granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals upon an ex parte written application of a police or of a law enforcement official who has been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council created in Section 53 of this Act to file such ex parte application, and upon examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce to establish: (a) that there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that the said crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism has been committed, or is being committed, or is about to be committed; (b) that there is probable cause to believe based on personal knowledge of facts or circumstances that evidence, which is essential to the conviction of any charged or suspected person for, or to the solution or prevention of, any such crimes, will be obtained; and, (c) that there is no other effective means readily available for acquiring such evidence.

SEC. 9. Classification and Contents of the Order of the Court. – The written order granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals as well as its order, if any, to extend or renew the same, the original application of the applicant, including his application to extend or renew, if any, and the written authorizations of the Anti-Terrorism Council shall be deemed and are hereby declared as classified information: Provided, That the person being surveilled or whose communications, letters, papers, messages, conversations. Discussions, spoken or written words and effects have been monitored, listened to, bugged or recorded by law enforcement authorities has the right to be informed of the acts done by the law enforcement authorities in the premises or to challenge, if he or she intends to do so, the legality of the interference before the Court of Appeals which issued the written order. The written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals shall specify the following: (a) the identity, such as name and address, if known, of the charged or suspected person whose communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words are to be tracked down, tapped, listened to, intercepted, and recorded and, in the case of radio, electronic, or telephonic (whether wireless or otherwise) communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words, the electronic transmission systems or the telephone numbers to be tracked down, tapped, listened to, intercepted, and recorded and their locations or if the person suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is not fully known, such person shall be subject to continuous surveillance provided there is a reasonable ground to do so; (b) the identity (name, address, and the police or law enforcement organization) of the police or of the law enforcement official, including the individual identity (names, addresses, and the police or law enforcement organization) of the members of his team, judicially authorized to track down, tap, listen to, intercept, and record the communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words; (c) the offense or offenses committed, or being committed, or sought to be prevented; and, (d) the length of time within which the authorization shall be used or carried out.

SEC. 10. Effective Period of Judicial Authorization. – Any authorization granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, pursuant to Sec. 9 (d) of this Act, shall only be effective for the length of time specified in the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, which shall not exceed a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals by the applicant police or law enforcement official.

The authorizing division of the Court of Appeals may extend or renew the said authorization for another non-extendible period, which shall not exceed thirty (30) days from the expiration of the original period: Provided, That the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals is satisfied that such extension or renewal is in the public interest: and Provided, further, That the ex parte application for extension or renewal, which must be filed by the original applicant, has been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council.

In case of death of the original applicant or in case he is physically disabled to file the application for extension or renewal, the one next in rank to the original applicant among the members of the team named in the original written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals shall file the application for extension or renewal: Provided, That, without prejudice to the liability of the police or law enforcement personnel under Section 20 hereof, the applicant police or law enforcement official shall have thirty (30) days after the termination of the period granted by the Court of Appeals as provided in the preceding paragraphs within which to file the appropriate case before the Public Prosecutor’s Office for any violation of this Act.

If no case is filed within the thirty (30)-day period, the applicant police or law enforcement official shall immediately notify the person subject of the surveillance, interception and recording of the termination of the said surveillance, interception and recording. The penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon the applicant police or law enforcement official who fails to notify the person subject of the surveillance, monitoring, interception and recording as specified above.

SEC. 11. Custody of Intercepted and Recorded Communications. – All tapes, discs, and recordings made pursuant to the authorization of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, including all excerpts and summaries thereof as well as all written notes or memoranda made in connection therewith, shall, within forty-eight (48) hours after the expiration of the period fixed in the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals or within forty-eight (48) hours after the expiration of any extension or renewal granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, be deposited with the authorizing Division of the Court of Appeals in a sealed envelope or sealed package, as the case may be, and shall be accompanied by a joint affidavit of the applicant police or law enforcement official and the members of his team.

In case of death of the applicant or in case he is physically disabled to execute the required affidavit, the one next in rank to the applicant among the members of the team named in the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals shall execute with the members of the team that required affidavit.

It shall be unlawful for any person, police officer or any custodian of the tapes, discs and recording, and their excerpts and summaries, written notes or memoranda to copy in whatever form, to remove, delete, expunge, incinerate, shred or destroy in any manner the items enumerated above in whole or in part under any pretext whatsoever.

Any person who removes, deletes, expunges incinerates, shreds or destroys the items enumerated above shall suffer a penalty of not less than six (6) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 12. Contents of Joint Affidavit. – The joint affidavit of the police or of the law enforcement official and the individual members of his team shall state: (a) the number of tapes, discs, and recordings that have been made, as well as the number of excerpts and summaries thereof and the number of written notes and memoranda, if any, made in connection therewith; (b) the dates and times covered by each of such tapes, discs, and recordings; (c) the number of tapes, discs, and recordings, as well as the number of excerpts and summaries thereof and the number of written notes and memoranda made in connection therewith that have been included in the deposit; and (d) the date of the original written authorization granted by the Anti-Terrorism Council to the applicant to file the ex parte application to conduct the tracking down, tapping, intercepting, and recording, as well as the date of any extension or renewal of the original written authority granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals.

The joint affidavit shall also certify under oath that no duplicates or copies of the whole or any part of any of such tapes, discs, and recordings, and that no duplicates or copies of the whole or any part of any of such excerpts, summaries, written notes, and memoranda, have been made, or, if made, that all such duplicates and copies are included in the sealed envelope or sealed package, as the case may be, deposited with the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals.

It shall be unlawful for any person, police or law enforcement official to omit or exclude from the joint affidavit any item or portion thereof mentioned in this Section.

Any person, police or law enforcement officer who violates any of the acts proscribed in the preceding paragraph shall suffer the penalty of not less than ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 13. Disposition of Deposited Materials. – The sealed envelope or sealed package and the contents thereof, which are deposited with the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, shall be deemed and are hereby declared classified information, and the sealed envelope or sealed package shall not be opened and its contents (including the tapes, discs, and recordings and all the excerpts and summaries thereof and the notes and memoranda made in connection therewith) shall not be divulged, revealed, read, replayed, or used as evidence unless authorized by written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, which written order shall be granted only upon a written application of the Department of Justice filed before the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals and only upon a showing that the Department of Justice has been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council to file the application with proper written notice the person whose conversation, communication, message discussion or spoken or written words have been the subject of surveillance, monitoring, recording and interception to open, reveal, divulge, and use the contents of the sealed envelope or sealed package as evidence.

Any person, law enforcement official or judicial authority who violates his duty to notify in writing the persons subject of the surveillance as defined above shall suffer the penalty of six (6) years and one day to eight (8) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 14. Application to Open Deposited Sealed Envelop or Sealed Package. – The written application with notice to the party concerned to open the deposited sealed envelope or sealed package shall clearly state the purpose or reason: (a) for opening the sealed envelope or sealed package; (b) for revealing or disclosing its classified contents; (c) for replaying, divulging, and or reading any of the listened to, intercepted, and recorded communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words (including any of the excerpts and summaries thereof and any of the notes or memoranda made in connection therewith); and, (d) for using any of said listened to ,intercepted, and recorded communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words (including any of the excerpts and summaries thereof and any of the notes or memoranda made in connection therewith) as evidence.

Any person, law enforcement official or judicial authority who violates his duty to notify as defined above shall suffer the penalty of six (6) years and one day to eight (8) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 15. Evidentiary Value of Deposited Materials. – Any listened to, intercepted, and recorded communications, messages, conversations, discussions, or spoken or written words, or any part or parts thereof, or any information or fact contained therein, including their existence, content, substance, purport, effect, or meaning, which have been secured in violation of the pertinent provisions of this Act, shall absolutely not be admissible and usable as evidence against anybody in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.

SEC. 16. Penalty for Unauthorized or malicious Interceptions and/or Recordings. – Any police or law enforcement personnel who, not being authorized to do so by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, tracks down, taps, listens to, intercepts, and records in whatever manner or form any communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written word of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall be guilty of an offense and shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other offense, the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment and the accessory penalty of perpetual absolute disqualification from public office shall be imposed upon any police or law enforcement personnel who maliciously obtained an authority from the Court of Appeals to track down, tap, listen to, intercept, and record in whatever manner or form any communication, message, conversation, discussion, or spoken or written words of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism: Provided, That notwithstanding Section 13 of this Act, the party aggrieved by such authorization shall be allowed access to the sealed envelope or sealed package and the contents thereof as evidence for the prosecution of any police or law enforcement personnel who maliciously procured said authorization.

SEC. 17. Proscription of Terrorist Organizations, Association, or Group of Persons. – Any organization, association, or group of persons organized for the purpose of engaging in terrorism, or which, although not organized for that purpose, actually uses the acts to terrorize mentioned in this Act or to sow and create a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand shall, upon application of the Department of Justice before a competent Regional Trial Court, with due notice and opportunity to be heard given to the organization, association, or group of persons concerned, be declared as a terrorist and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons by the said Regional Trial Court.

SEC. 18. Period of Detention Without Judicial Warrant of Arrest. – The provisions of Article 125 of the Revised Penal Code to the contrary notwithstanding, any police or law enforcement personnel, who, having been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council has taken custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall, without incurring any criminal liability for delay in the delivery of detained persons to the proper judicial authorities, deliver said charged or suspected person to the proper judicial authority within a period of three (3) days counted from the moment the said charged or suspected person has been apprehended or arrested, detained, and taken into custody by the said police, or law enforcement personnel: Provided, That the arrest of those suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism must result from the surveillance under Section 7 and examination of bank deposits under Section 27 of this Act.

The police or law enforcement personnel concerned shall, before detaining the person suspected of the crime of terrorism, present him or her before any judge at the latter’s residence or office nearest the place where the arrest took place at any time of the day or night. It shall be the duty of the judge, among other things, to ascertain the identity of the police or law enforcement personnel and the person or persons they have arrested and presented before him or her, to inquire of them the reasons why they have arrested the person and determine by questioning and personal observation whether or not the suspect has been subjected to any physical, moral or psychological torture by whom and why. The judge shall then submit a written report of what he/she had observed when the subject was brought before him to the proper court that has jurisdiction over the case of the person thus arrested. the judge shall forthwith submit his/her report within three (3) calendar days from the time the suspect was brought to his/her residence or office.

Immediately after taking custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, the police or law enforcement personnel shall notify in writing the judge of the court nearest the place of apprehension or arrest: Provided, That where the arrest is made during saturdays, sundays, holidays or after office hours, the written notice shall be served at the residence of the judge nearest the place where the accused was arrested.

The penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon the police or law enforcement personnel who fails to notify any judge as provided in the preceding paragraph.

SEC. 19. Period of Detention in the Event of an Actual or Imminent Terrorist Attack. – In the event of an actual or imminent terrorist attack, suspects may not be detained for more than three (3) days without the written approval of a municipal, city, provincial or regional official of a Human Rights Commission or judge of the municipal, regional trial court, the Sandiganbayan or a justice of the Court of Appeals nearest the place of the arrest. If the arrest is made during Saturdays, Sundays, holidays or after office hours, the arresting police or law enforcement personnel shall bring the person thus arrested to the residence of any of the officials mentioned above that is nearest the place where the accused was arrested. The approval in writing of any of the said officials shall be secured by the police or law enforcement personnel concerned within five (5) days after the date of the detention of the persons concerned: Provided, however, That within three (3) days after the detention the suspects, whose connection with the terror attack or threat is not established, shall be released immediately.

SEC. 20. Penalty for Failure to Deliver Suspect to the Proper Judicial Authority Within Three (3) Days. – The penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon any police or law enforcement personnel who has apprehended or arrested, detained and taken custody of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism and fails to deliver such charged or suspected person to the proper judicial authority within the period of three (3) days.

SEC. 21. Rights of a Person Under Custodial Detention. – The moment a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism is apprehended or arrested and detained, he shall forthwith be informed, by the arresting police or law enforcement officers or by the police or law enforcement officers to whose custody the person concerned is brought, of his or her right: (a) to be informed of the nature and cause of his arrest, to remain silent and to have competent and independent counsel preferably of his choice. If the person cannot afford the services of counsel of his or her choice, the police or law enforcement officers concerned shall immediately contact the free legal assistance unit of the Integrated Bar of the Philippines (IBP) or the Public Attorney’s Office (PAO). It shall be the duty of the free legal assistance unit of the IBP or the PAO thus contacted to immediately visit the person(s) detained and provide him or her with legal assistance. These rights cannot be waived except in writing and in the presence of the counsel of choice; (b) informed of the cause or causes of his detention in the presence of his legal counsel; (c) allowed to communicate freely with his legal counsel and to confer with them at any time without restriction; (d) allowed to communicate freely and privately without restrictions with the members of his family or with his nearest relatives and to be visited by them; and, (e) allowed freely to avail of the service of a physician or physicians of choice.

SEC. 22. Penalty for Violation of the Rights of a Detainee. – Any police or law enforcement personnel, or any personnel of the police or other law enforcement custodial unit that violates any of the aforesaid rights of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall be guilty of an offense and shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

Unless the police or law enforcement personnel who violated the rights of a detainee or detainees as stated above is duly identified, the same penalty shall be imposed on the police officer or head or leader of the law enforcement unit having custody of the detainee at the time the violation was done.

SEC. 23. Requirement for an Official Custodial Logbook and Its Contents. – The police or other law enforcement custodial unit in whose care and control the person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism has been placed under custodial arrest and detention shall keep a securely and orderly maintained official logbook, which is hereby declared as a public document and opened to and made available for the inspection and scrutiny of the lawyer or lawyers of the person under custody or any member of his or her family or relative by consanguinity or affinity within the fourth civil degree or his or her physician at any time of the day or night without any form of restriction. The logbook shall contain a clear and concise record of: (a) the name, description, and address of the detained person; (b) the date and exact time of his initial admission for custodial arrest and detention; (c) the name and address of the physician or physicians who examined him physically and medically; (d) the state of his health and physical condition at the time of his initial admission for custodial detention; (e) the date and time of each removal of the detained person from his cell for interrogation or for any purpose; (f) the date and time of his return to his cell; (g) the name and address of the physician or physicians who physically and medically examined him after each interrogation; (h) a summary of the physical and medical findings on the detained person after each of such interrogation; (i) the names and addresses of his family members and nearest relatives, if any and if available; (j) the names and addresses of persons who visit the detained person; (k) the date and time of each of such visits; (l) the date and time of each request of the detained person to communicate and confer with his legal counsel or counsels; (m) the date and time of each visit, and date and time of each departure of his legal counsel or counsels; and, (n) all other important events bearing on and all relevant details regarding the treatment of the detained person while under custodial arrest and detention.

The said police or law enforcement custodial unit shall upon demand of the aforementioned lawyer or lawyers or members of the family or relatives within the fourth civil degree of consanguinity or affinity of the person under custody or his or her physician issue a certified true copy of the entries of the logbook relative to the concerned detained person without delay or restriction or requiring any fees whatsoever including documentary stamp tax, notarial fees, and the like. This certified true copy may be attested by the person who has custody of the logbook or who allowed the party concerned to scrutinize it at the time the demand for the certified true copy is made.

The police or other law enforcement custodial unit who fails to comply with the preceding paragraph to keep an official logbook shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 24. No Torture or Coercion in Investigation and Interrogation. – No threat, intimidation, or coercion, and no act which will inflict any form of physical pain or torment, or mental, moral, or psychological pressure, on the detained person, which shall vitiate his free-will, shall be employed in his investigation and interrogation for the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism; otherwise, the evidence obtained from said detained person resulting from such threat, intimidation, or coercion, or from such inflicted physical pain or torment, or mental, moral, or psychological pressure, shall be, in its entirety, absolutely not admissible and usable as evidence in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.

SEC. 25. Penalty for Threat, Intimidation, Coercion, or Torture in the Investigation and Interrogation of a Detained Person. – Any person or persons who use threat, intimidation, or coercion, or who inflict physical pain or torment, or mental, moral, or psychological pressure, which shall vitiate the free-will of a charged or suspected person under investigation and interrogation for the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism shall be guilty of an offense and shall suffer the penalty of twelve (12) years and one day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment.

When death or serious permanent disability of said detained person occurs as a consequence of the use of such threat, intimidation, or coercion, or as a consequence of the infliction on him of such physical pain or torment, or as a consequence of the infliction on him of such mental, moral, or psychological pressure, the penalty shall be twelve (12) years and one day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment

SEC. 26. Restriction on Travel. - In cases where evidence of guilt is not strong, and the person charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is entitled to bail and is granted the same, the court, upon application by the prosecutor, shall limit the right of travel of the accused to within the municipality or city where he resides or where the case is pending, in the interest of national security and public safety, consistent with Article III, Section 6 of the Constitution. Travel outside of said municipality or city, without the authorization of the court, shall be deemed a violation of the terms and conditions of his bail, which shall then be forfeited as provided under the Rules of Court.

He or she may also be placed under house arrest by order of the court at his or her usual place of residence.

While under house arrest, he or she may not use telephones, cellphones, e-mails, computers, the internet or other means of communications with people outside the residence until otherwise ordered by the court.

The restrictions abovementioned shall be terminated upon the acquittal of the accused or of the dismissal of the case filed against him or earlier upon the discretion of the court on motion of the prosecutor or of the accused.

SEC. 27. Judicial Authorization Required to Examine Bank Deposits, Accounts, and Records. – The provisions of Republic Act No. 1405 as amended, to the contrary notwithstanding, the justices of the Court of Appeals designated as a special court to handle anti-terrorism cases after satisfying themselves of the existence of probable cause in a hearing called for that purpose that (1) a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2) of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons, and (3) of a member of such judicially declared and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons, may authorize in writing any police or law enforcement officer and the members of his/her team duly authorized in writing by the anti-terrorism council to: (a) examine, or cause the examination of, the deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records in a bank or financial institution; and (b) gather or cause the gathering of any relevant information about such deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records from a bank or financial institution. the bank or financial institution concerned shall not refuse to allow such examination or to provide the desired information, when so ordered by and served with the written order of the Court of Appeals.

SEC. 28. Application to Examine Bank Deposits, Accounts, and Records. – The written order of the Court of Appeals authorizing the examination of bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records: (1) of a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2) of any judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons, or (3) of any member of such organization, association, or group of persons in a bank or financial institution, and the gathering of any relevant information about the same from said bank or financial institution, shall only be granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals upon an ex parte application to that effect of a police or of a law enforcement official who has been duly authorized in writing to file such ex parte application by the Anti-Terrorism Council created in Section 53 of this Act to file such ex parte application, and upon examination under oath or affirmation of the applicant and the witnesses he may produce to establish the facts that will justify the need and urgency of examining and freezing the bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records: (1) of the person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2) of a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association or group of persons, or (3) of any member of such organization, association, or group of persons.

SEC. 29. Classification and Contents of the Court Order Authorizing the Examination of Bank Deposits, Accounts, and Records. – The written order granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals as well as its order, if any, to extend or renew the same, the original ex parte application of the applicant, including his ex parte application to extend or renew, if any, and the written authorizations of the Anti Terrorism Council, shall be deemed and are hereby declared as classified information: Provided, That the person whose bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records have been examined, frozen, sequestered and seized by law enforcement authorities has the right to be informed of the acts done by the law enforcement authorities in the premises or to challenge, if he or she intends to do so, the legality of the interference. The written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals designated to handle cases involving terrorism shall specify: (a) the identity of the said: (1) person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2) judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons, and (3) member of such judicially declared and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons, as the case may be, whose deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records are to be examined or the information to be gathered; (b) the identity of the bank or financial institution where such deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records are held and maintained; (c) the identity of the persons who will conduct the said examination and the gathering of the desired information; and, (d) the length of time the authorization shall be carried out.

SEC. 30. Effective Period of Court Authorization to Examine and Obtain Information on Bank Deposits, Accounts, and Records. – The authorization issued or granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals to examine or cause the examination of and to freeze bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records, or to gather information about the same, shall be effective for the length of time specified in the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, which shall not exceed a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals by the applicant police or law enforcement official.

The authorizing division of the Court of Appeals may extend or renew the said authorization for another period, which shall not exceed thirty (30) days renewable to another thirty (30) days from the expiration of the original period, provided that the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals is satisfied that such extension or renewal is in the public interest, and provided further that the application for extension or renewal, which must be filed by the original applicant, has been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council.

In case of death of the original applicant or in case he is physically disabled to file the application for extension or renewal, the one next in rank to the original applicant among the members of the team named in the original written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals shall file the application for extension or renewal: Provided, That, without prejudice to the liability of the police or law enforcement personnel under Section 19 hereof, the applicant police or law enforcement official shall have thirty (30) days after the termination of the period granted by the Court of Appeals as provided in the preceding paragraphs within which to file the appropriate case before the Public Prosecutor’s Office for any violation of this Act.

If no case is filed within the thirty (30)-day period, the applicant police or law enforcement official shall immediately notify in writing the person subject of the bank examination and freezing of bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records. The penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon the applicant police or law enforcement official who fails to notify in writing the person subject of the bank examination and freezing of bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records.

Any person, law enforcement official or judicial authority who violates his duty to notify in writing as defined above shall suffer the penalty of six (6) years and one day to eight (8) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 31. Custody of Bank Data and Information Obtained after Examination of Deposits, Placements, Trust Accounts, Assets and Records. – All information, data, excerpts, summaries, notes, memoranda, working sheets, reports, and other documents obtained from the examination of the bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records of: (1) a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2) a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons, or (3) a member of any such organization, association, or group of persons shall, within forty-eight (48) hours after the expiration of the period fixed in the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals or within forty-eight (48) hours after the expiration of the extension or renewal granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, be deposited with the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals in a sealed envelope or sealed package, as the case may be, and shall be accompanied by a joint affidavit of the applicant police or law enforcement official and the persons who actually conducted the examination of said bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records.

SEC. 32. Contents of Joint Affidavit. – The joint affidavit shall state: (a) the identifying marks, numbers, or symbols of the deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records examined; (b) the identity and address of the bank or financial institution where such deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records are held and maintained; (c) the number of bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records discovered, examined, and frozen; (d) the outstanding balances of each of such deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets; (e) all information, data, excerpts, summaries, notes, memoranda, working sheets, reports, documents, records examined and placed in the sealed envelope or sealed package deposited with the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals; (f) the date of the original written authorization granted by the Anti-Terrorism Council to the applicant to file the ex parte application to conduct the examination of the said bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records, as well as the date of any extension or renewal of the original written authorization granted by the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals; and (g) that the items enumerated were all that were found in the bank or financial institution examined at the time of the completion of the examination.

The joint affidavit shall also certify under oath that no duplicates or copies of the information, data, excerpts, summaries, notes, memoranda, working sheets, reports, and documents acquired from the examination of the bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records have been made, or, if made, that all such duplicates and copies are placed in the sealed envelope or sealed package deposited with the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals.

It shall be unlawful for any person, police officer or custodian of the bank data and information obtained after examination of deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records to copy, to remove, delete, expunge, incinerate, shred or destroy in any manner the items enumerated above in whole or in part under any pretext whatsoever.

Any person who copies, removes, deletes, expunges incinerates, shreds or destroys the items enumerated above shall suffer a penalty of not less than six (6) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 33. Disposition of Bank Materials. – The sealed envelope or sealed package and the contents thereof, which are deposited with the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, shall be deemed and are hereby declared classified information, and the sealed envelope or sealed package shall not be opened and its contents shall not be divulged, revealed, read, or used as evidence unless authorized in a written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, which written order shall be granted only upon a written application of the Department of Justice filed before the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals and only upon a showing that the Department of Justice has been duly authorized in writing by the Anti-Terrorism Council to file the application, with notice in writing to the party concerned not later than three (3) days before the scheduled opening, to open, reveal, divulge, and use the contents of the sealed envelope or sealed package as evidence.

Any person, law enforcement official or judicial authority who violates his duty to notify in writing as defined above shall suffer the penalty of six (6) years and one day to eight (8) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 34. Application to Open Deposited Bank Materials. – The written application, with notice in writing to the party concerned not later than three (3) days of the scheduled opening, to open the sealed envelope or sealed package shall clearly state the purpose and reason: (a) for opening the sealed envelope or sealed package; (b) for revealing and disclosing its classified contents; and, (c) for using the classified information, data, excerpts, summaries, notes, memoranda, working sheets, reports, and documents as evidence.

SEC. 35. Evidentiary Value of Deposited Bank Materials. – Any information, data, excerpts, summaries, notes, memoranda, work sheets, reports, or documents acquired from the examination of the bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records of: (1) a person charged or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2) a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons, or (3) a member of such organization, association, or group of persons, which have been secured in violation of the provisions of this Act, shall absolutely not be admissible and usable as evidence against anybody in any judicial, quasi-judicial, legislative, or administrative investigation, inquiry, proceeding, or hearing.

SEC. 36. Penalty for Unauthorized or Malicious Examination of a Bank or a Financial Institution. – Any person, police or law enforcement personnel who examines the deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, or records in a bank or financial institution of: (1) a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2) a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons, or (3) a member of such organization, association, or group of persons, without being authorized to do so by the Court of Appeals, shall be guilty of an offense and shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

In addition to the liability attaching to the offender for the commission of any other offense, the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon any police or law enforcement personnel, who maliciously obtained an authority from the Court of Appeals to examine the deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, or records in a bank or financial institution of: (1) a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2) a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons, or (3) a member of such organization, association, or group of persons: Provided, That notwithstanding Section 33 of this Act, the party aggrieved by such authorization shall upon motion duly filed be allowed access to the sealed envelope or sealed package and the contents thereof as evidence for the prosecution of any police or law enforcement personnel who maliciously procured said authorization.

SEC. 37. Penalty of Bank Officials and Employees Defying a Court Authorization. – An employee, official, or a member of the board of directors of a bank or financial institution, who refuses to allow the examination of the deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records of: (1) a person charged with or suspected of the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism, (2) a judicially declared and outlawed terrorist organization, association, or group of persons, or (3) a member of such judicially declared and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons in said bank or financial institution, when duly served with the written order of the authorizing division of the Court of Appeals, shall be guilty of an offense and shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 38. Penalty for False or Untruthful Statement or Misrepresentation of Material Fact in Joint Affidavits. – Any false or untruthful statement or misrepresentation of material fact in the joint affidavits required respectively in Section 12 and Section 32 of this Act shall constitute a criminal offense and the affiants shall suffer individually the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 39. Seizure and Sequestration. – The deposits and their outstanding balances, placements, trust accounts, assets, and records in any bank or financial institution, moneys, businesses, transportation and communication equipment, supplies and other implements, and property of whatever kind and nature belonging: (1) to any person suspected of or charged before a competent Regional Trial Court for the crime of terrorism or the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism; (2) to a judicially declared and outlawed organization, association, or group of persons; or (3) to a member of such organization, association, or group of persons shall be seized, sequestered, and frozen in order to prevent their use, transfer, or conveyance for purposes that are inimical to the safety and security of the people or injurious to the interest of the State.

The accused or a person suspected of may withdraw such sums as may be reasonably needed by the monthly needs of his family including the services of his or her counsel and his or her family’s medical needs upon approval of the court. He or she may also use any of his property that is under seizure or sequestration or frozen because of his or her indictment as a terrorist upon permission of the court for any legitimate reason.

Any person who unjustifiably refuses to follow the order of the proper division of the Court of Appeals to allow the person accused of the crime of terrorism or of the crime of conspiracy to commit terrorism to withdraw such sums from sequestered or frozen deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records as may be necessary for the regular sustenance of his or her family or to use any of his or her property that has been seized, sequestered or frozen for legitimate purposes while his or her case is pending shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 40. Nature of Seized, Sequestered and Frozen Bank Deposits, Placements, Trust Accounts, Assets and Records. – The seized, sequestered and frozen bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records belonging to a person suspected of or charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism shall be deemed as property held in trust by the bank or financial institution for such person and the government during the pendency of the investigation of the person suspected of or during the pendency of the trial of the person charged with any of the said crimes, as the case may be and their use or disposition while the case is pending shall be subject to the approval of the court before which the case or cases are pending.

SEC. 41. Disposition of the Seized, Sequestered and Frozen Bank Deposits, Placements, Trust Accounts, Assets and Record. – If the person suspected of or charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is found, after his investigation, to be innocent by the investigating body, or is acquitted, after his arraignment or his case is dismissed before his arraignment by a competent court, the seizure, sequestration and freezing of his bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records shall forthwith be deemed lifted by the investigating body or by the competent court, as the case may be, and his bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records shall be deemed released from such seizure, sequestration and freezing, and shall be restored to him without any delay by the bank or financial institution concerned without any further action on his part. The filing of any appeal on motion for reconsideration shall not state the release of said funds from seizure, sequestration and freezing.

If the person charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism is convicted by a final judgment of a competent trial court, his seized, sequestered and frozen bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records shall be automatically forfeited in favor of the government.

Upon his or her acquittal or the dismissal of the charges against him or her, the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) a day for the period in which his properties, assets or funds were seized shall be paid to him on the concept of liquidated damages. The amount shall be taken from the appropriations of the police or law enforcement agency that caused the filing of the enumerated charges against him or her.

SEC. 42. Penalty for Unjustified Refusal to Restore or Delay in Restoring Seized, Sequestered and Frozen Bank Deposits, Placements, Trust Accounts, Assets and Records. – Any person who unjustifiably refuses to restore or delays the restoration of seized, sequestered and frozen bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records of a person suspected of or charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism after such suspected person has been found innocent by the investigating body or after the case against such charged person has been dismissed or after he is acquitted by a competent court shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 43. Penalty for the Loss, Misuse, Diversion or Dissipation of Seized, Sequestered and Frozen Bank Deposits, Placements, Trust Accounts, Assets and Records. – Any person who is responsible for the loss, misuse, diversion, or dissipation of the whole or any part of the seized, sequestered and frozen bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records of a person suspected of or charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism shall suffer the penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment.

SEC. 44. Infidelity in the Custody of Detained Persons. – Any public officer who has direct custody of a detained person under the provisions of this Act and who by his deliberate act, misconduct, or inexcusable negligence causes or allows the escape of such detained person shall be guilty of an offense and shall suffer the penalty of: (a) twelve (12) years and one day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment, if the detained person has already been convicted and sentenced in a final judgment of a competent court; and (b) six (6) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment, if the detained person has not been convicted and sentenced in a final judgment of a competent court.

SEC. 45. Immunity and Protection of Government Witnesses. – The provisions of Republic Act No. 6981 (Witness Protection, Security and Benefits Act) to the contrary notwithstanding, the immunity of government witnesses testifying under this Act shall be governed by Sections 17 and 18 of Rule 119 of the Rules of Court: Provided, however, That said witnesses shall be entitled to benefits granted to witnesses under said Republic Act No. 6981.

SEC. 46. Penalty for Unauthorized Revelation of Classified Materials. – The penalty of ten (10) years and one day to twelve (12) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person, police or law enforcement agent, judicial officer or civil servant who, not being authorized by the Court of Appeals to do so, reveals in any manner or form any classified information under this Act.

SEC. 47. Penalty for Furnishing False Evidence, Forged Document, or Spurious Evidence. – The penalty of twelve (12) years and one day to twenty (20) years of imprisonment shall be imposed upon any person who knowingly furnishes false testimony, forged document or spurious evidence in any investigation or hearing under this Act.

SEC. 48. Continuous Trial. - In cases of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, the judge shall set the case for continuous trial on a daily basis from Monday to Friday or other short-term trial calendar so as to ensure speedy trial.

SEC. 49. Prosecution Under This Act Shall Be a Bar to Another Prosecution Under the Revised Penal Code or Any Special Penal Laws. - When a person has been prosecuted under a provision of this Act, upon a valid complaint or information or other formal charge sufficient in form and substance to sustain a conviction and after the accused had pleaded to the charge, the acquittal of the accused or the dismissal of the case shall be a bar to another prosecution for any offense or felony which is necessarily included in the offense charged under this Act.

SEC. 50. Damages for Unproven Charge of Terrorism. – Upon acquittal, any person who is accused of terrorism shall be entitled to the payment of damages in the amount of Five Hundred Thousand Pesos (P500,000.00) for every day that he or she has been detained or deprived of liberty or arrested without a warrant as a result of such an accusation. The amount of damages shall be automatically charged against the appropriations of the police agency or the Anti-Terrorism Council that brought or sanctioned the filing of the charges against the accused. It shall also be released within fifteen (15) days from the date of the acquittal of the accused. The award of damages mentioned above shall be without prejudice to the right of the acquitted accused to file criminal or administrative charges against those responsible for charging him with the case of terrorism.

Any officer, employee, personnel, or person who delays the release or refuses to release the amounts awarded to the individual acquitted of the crime of terrorism as directed in the paragraph immediately preceding shall suffer the penalty of six (6) months of imprisonment.

If the deductions are less than the amounts due to the detained persons, the amount needed to complete the compensation shall be taken from the current appropriations for intelligence, emergency, social or other funds of the Office of the President.

In the event that the amount cannot be covered by the current budget of the police or law enforcement agency concerned, the amount shall be automatically included in the appropriations of the said agency for the coming year.

SEC. 51. Duty to Record and Report the Name and Address of the Informant. - The police or law enforcement officers to whom the name of a suspect in the crime of terrorism was first revealed shall record the real name and the specific address of the informant.

The police or law enforcement officials concerned shall report the informant’s name and address to their superior officer who shall transmit the information to the Congressional Oversight Committee or to the proper court within five (5) days after the suspect was placed under arrest or his properties were sequestered, seized or frozen.

The name and address of the informant shall be considered confidential and shall not be unnecessarily revealed until after the proceedings against the suspect shall have been terminated.

SEC. 52. Applicability of the Revised Penal Code. - The provisions of Book I of the Revised Penal Code shall be applicable to this Act.

SEC. 53. Anti-Terrorism Council. – An Anti-Terrorism Council, hereinafter referred to, for brevity, as the “Council,” is hereby created. The members of the Council are: (1) the Executive Secretary, who shall be its chairperson; (2) the Secretary of Justice, who shall be its Vice Chairperson; and (3) the Secretary of Foreign Affairs; (4) the Secretary of National Defense; (5) the Secretary of the Interior and Local Government; (6) the Secretary of Finance; and (7) the National Security Advisor, as its other members.

The Council shall implement this Act and assume the responsibility for the proper and effective implementation of the anti-terrorism policy of the country. The Council shall keep records of its proceedings and decisions. All records of the Council shall be subject to such security classifications as the Council may, in its judgment and discretion, decide to adopt to safeguard the safety of the people, the security of the Republic, and the welfare of the nation.

The National Intelligence Coordinating Agency shall be the Secretariat of the Council. The Council shall define the powers, duties, and functions of the National Intelligence Coordinating Agency as Secretariat of the Council. The National Bureau of Investigation, the Bureau of Immigration, the Office of Civil Defense, the Intelligence Service of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, the Anti-Money Laundering Council, the Philippine Center on Transnational Crime, and the Philippine National Police intelligence and investigative elements shall serve as support agencies for the Council.

The Council shall formulate and adopt comprehensive, adequate, efficient, and effective anti-terrorism plans, programs, and counter-measures to suppress and eradicate terrorism in the country and to protect the people from acts of terrorism. Nothing herein shall be interpreted to empower the Anti-Terrorism Council to exercise any judicial or quasi-judicial power or authority.

SEC. 54. Functions of the Council. – In pursuit of its mandate in the previous Section, the Council shall have the following functions with due regard for the rights of the people as mandated by the Constitution and pertinent laws:

1. Formulate and adopt plans, programs and counter-measures against terrorists and acts of terrorism in the country;

2. Coordinate all national efforts to suppress and eradicate acts of terrorism in the country and mobilize the entire nation against terrorism proscribed in this Act;

3. Direct the speedy investigation and prosecution of all persons accused or detained for the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism and other offenses punishable under this Act, and monitor the progress of their cases;

4. Establish and maintain comprehensive data-base information systems on terrorism, terrorist activities, and counter-terrorism operations;

5. Freeze the funds property, bank deposits, placements, trust accounts, assets and records belonging to a person suspected of or charged with the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism, pursuant to Republic Act No. 9160 otherwise known as the Anti-Money Laundering Act of 2001, as amended;

6. Grant monetary rewards and other incentives to informers who give vital information leading to the apprehension, arrest, detention, prosecution, and conviction of person or persons who are liable for the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism;

7. Establish and maintain coordination with and the cooperation and assistance of other nations in the struggle against international terrorism; and

8. Request the Supreme Court to designate specific divisions of the Court of Appeals and regional trial courts in Manila, Cebu City and Cagayan de Oro City, as the case may be, to handle all cases involving the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism and all matters incident to said crimes. The Secretary of Justice shall assign a team of prosecutors from: (a) Luzon to handle terrorism cases filed in the regional trial court in Manila; (b) from the Visayas to handle cases filed in Cebu City; and (c) from Mindanao to handle cases filed in Cagayan de Oro City.

SEC. 55. Role of the Commission on Human Rights. - The Commission on Human Rights shall give the highest priority to the investigation and prosecution of violations of civil and political rights of persons in relation to the implementation of this Act; and for this purpose, the Commission shall have the concurrent jurisdiction to prosecute public officials, law enforcers, and other persons who may have violated the civil and political rights of persons suspected of, accused of, or detained for the crime of terrorism or conspiracy to commit terrorism.

SEC. 56. Creation of a Grievance Committee. - There is hereby created a Grievance Committee composed of the Ombudsman, as chair, and the Solicitor General, and an undersecretary from the Department of Justice (DOJ), as members, to receive and evaluate complaints against the actuations of the police and law enforcement officials in the implementation of this Act. The Committee shall hold office in Manila.

The Committee shall have three (3) subcommittees that will be respectively headed by the Deputy Ombudsmen in Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao. The subcommittees shall respectively hold office at the Offices of Deputy Ombudsmen. Three (3) Assistant Solicitors General designated by the Solicitor General, and the regional prosecutors of the DOJ assigned to the regions where the Deputy Ombudsmen hold office shall be members thereof. The three (3) subcommittees shall assist the Grievance Committee in receiving, investigating and evaluating complaints against the police and other law enforcement officers in the implementation of the Act. If the evidence warrants it, they may file the appropriate cases against the erring police and law enforcement officers. Unless seasonably disowned or denounced by the complainants, decisions or judgments in the said cases shall preclude the filing of other cases based on the same cause or causes of action as those that were filed with the Grievance Committee or its branches.

SEC. 57. Ban on Extraordinary Rendition. - No person suspected or convicted of the crime of terrorism shall be subjected to extraordinary rendition to any country unless his or her testimony is needed for terrorist related police investigations or judicial trials in the said country and unless his or her human rights, including the right against torture, and right to counsel, are officially assured by the requesting country and transmitted accordingly and approved by the Department of Justice.

SEC. 58. Extra-Territorial Application of this Act. – Subject to the provision of an existing treaty of which the Philippines is a signatory and to any contrary provision of any law of preferential application, the provisions of this Act shall apply: (1) to individual persons who commit any of the crimes defined and punished in this Act within the terrestrial domain, interior waters, maritime zone, and airspace of the Philippines; (2) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit, conspire or plot to commit any of the crimes defined and punished in this Act inside the territorial limits of the Philippines; (3) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit any of the said crimes on board Philippine ship or Philippine airship; (4) to individual persons who commit any of said crimes within any embassy, consulate, or diplomatic premises belonging to or occupied by the Philippine government in an official capacity; (5) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes against Philippine citizens or persons of Philippine descent, where their citizenship or ethnicity was a factor in the commission of the crime; and (6) to individual persons who, although physically outside the territorial limits of the Philippines, commit said crimes directly against the Philippine government.

SEC. 59. Joint Oversight Committee. - There is hereby created a Joint Oversight Committee to oversee the implementation of this Act.

The Oversight Committee shall be composed of five (5) members each from the Senate and the House in addition to the Chairs of the Committees of Public Order of both Houses who shall also Chair the Oversight Committee in the order specified herein. The membership of the Committee for every House shall at least have two (2) opposition or minority members. The Joint Oversight Committee shall have its own independent counsel.

The Chair of the Committee shall rotate every six (6) months with the Senate chairing it for the first six (6) months and the House for the next six (6) months. In every case, the ranking opposition or minority member of the Committee shall be the Vice Chair.

Upon the expiration of one year after this Act is approved by the President, the Committee shall review the Act particularly the provisions that authorize the surveillance of suspects of or persons charged with the crime of terrorism. To that end, the Committee shall summon the police and law enforcement officers and the members of the Anti-Terrorism Council and require them to answer questions from the members of Congress and to submit a written report of the acts they have done in the implementation of the law including the manner in which the persons suspected of or charged with the crime of terrorism have been dealt with in their custody and from the date when the movements of the latter were subjected to surveillance and his or her correspondences, messages, conversations and the like were listened to or subjected to monitoring, recording and tapping.

Without prejudice to its submitting other reports, the Committee shall render a semi-annual report to both Houses of Congress. The report may include where necessary a recommendation to reassess the effects of globalization on terrorist activities on the people, provide a sunset clause to or amend any portion of the Act or to repeal the Act in its entirety.

The courts dealing with anti-terrorism cases shall submit to Congress and the President a report every six (6) months of the status of anti-terrorism cases that have been filed with them starting from the date this Act is implemented.

SEC. 60. Separability Clause. – If for any reason any part or provision of this Act is declared unconstitutional or invalid, the other parts or provisions hereof which are not affected thereby shall remain and continue to be in full force and effect.

SEC. 61. Repealing Clause. – All laws, decrees, executive orders, rules or regulations or parts thereof, inconsistent with the provisions of this Act are hereby repealed, amended, or modified accordingly.

SEC. 62. Special Effectivity Clause. - After the bill shall have been signed into law by the President, the Act shall be published in three (3) newspapers of national circulation; three (3) newspapers of local circulation, one each in Ilocos Norte, Baguio City and Pampanga; three (3) newspapers of local circulation, one each in Cebu, Iloilo and Tacloban; and three (3) newspapers of local circulation, one each in Cagayan de Oro, Davao and General Santos City.

The title of the Act and its provisions defining the acts of terrorism that are punished shall be aired everyday at primetime for seven (7) days, morning, noon and night over three (3) national television and radio networks; three (3) radio and television networks, one each in Cebu, Tacloban and Iloilo; and in five (5) radio and television networks, one each in Lanao del Sur, Cagayan de Oro, Davao City, Cotabato City and Zamboanga City. The publication in the newspapers of local circulation and the announcements over local radio and television networks shall be done in the dominant language of the community.

After the publication required above shall have been done, the Act shall take effect two (2) months after the elections are held in May 2007.

Thereafter, the provisions of this Act shall be automatically suspended one month before and two months after the holding of any election.

Approved,

Assuming there is some sort of martial law plan in the works, the bombings in Mindanao will justify a state of emergency. In Mindanao only. Mestizo martial law.

Mestizo martial law is all the administration needs to guarantee victory in 2010, winning votes always come from the usual suspects - ARMM and vicinity. Thus Martial law in that area will come in handy.

A mestizo martial law is easier to sell to the americans. The recent bombings might just convince the CIA’s Panetta that a declaration of a state of emergency is needed over there.

If the Americans do not object, then the idea is to make the declaration and get on with stopping the bombings.

In three months or less the bombings will stop and the state of emergency will be lifted. Now people in affected areas will say “that was not too bad. and it stopped the bombings.” Outsiders will agree. Filipinos who don’t live in ARMM or near it will judge the state of emergency on the results.

By March next year, if the presidential campaign is not going too well, there will be a resumption of the bombings. A state of emergency for ARMM and neighborhood will be reimposed. And this time around it will be easier to do. It stopped the bombings the first time around, right?

Mestizo martial law will be lifted after the election period.

Why a mestizo martial law rather than a full-blooded one?

It will reassure Filipinos, America, and the international community that the country remains democratic. The military will remain under the control of Malacanan, instead of the other way around, because military rule will be temporary and limited to ARMM and trouble areas.

That also means only a limited number of brass will be needed for this operation. The situation that occurred under Marcos, the necessity for a regime of hold-over generals which eventually led to discontent among the officer corps, will not be repeated.

There might be a few strategic hold-overs but it will not become widespread. And so the rest of the brass will still be at the mercy of a promotion system. Loyalty to the commander in chief will still be the norm. The chain of command will be left intact and in full compliance with the Constitution.

However, although mestizo martial will guarantee victory for the administration presidential candidate in 2010, there is no certainty that the new president will go along with “the plan” and step aside for Gloria.

Once the new president is sworn in, he becomes numero uno. He will be giving orders not taking them. So more likely than not, he will be the only Filipino smiling when all is said and done.

Below is Comment submitted by VICENTE CALIBO DE JESUS posted  in the Comment Thread of  The Greening of Jose Rizalin which the defense, by Ambeth Ocampo of the  Rizal House in Calamba, Laguna being painted green, is described by the most curious German word: a Schlimmbesserung  --

VICENTE CALIBO DE JESUS:

This is a case of Schlimmbesserungen, a German term for a solution--painting the Rizal home neon green (see http://www.tdoffgolf.com/images/Neon_Green.gif--to a perceived problem, ignorance of the Spanish provenance of the Rizal name which is “racial”, which makes conditions worse.

The Chair of the National Historical Institute of the Philippines, Dr. Ambeth Ocampo, gave a precise definition of his “ricial”. In his column Ocampo states, “The word comes from the Spanish ‘ricial’ which describes a green field ready for harvest.”

Dr. Ocampo further defines his “racial” to more precisely fit what specific green he had in mind as “the color of palay or ripe rice stalk.”

“Ripe rice” ready for harvest is “golden yellow” (click http://www.juergen-zink.de/Nepal/pic133.jpg showing rice that’s ripe for harvest).

Ocampo notion of the color of “ripe rice stalk’ conflicts with reality. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to know this. In fact even an illiterate rice farmer knows this basic fact.

So, even the basic assumption of Ocampo that underpins his solution is a “historian’s logical fallacy.”

His solution to a self-inflicted problem consists of several fallacies:

1. Painting Rizal’s home with an “offensive green” (Ocampo’s own term) is an aesthetic solution to a lexical problem or more to the point an information problem. He can very well make use of a limitless array of lexical armamentarium open to Ocampo: radio, TV, newspapers, DVDs, movies, magazines, books, brochures, listservs, Facebook, Flickr, Multiply, Twitter, YouTube, blogs, advertising in all forms of media, etc. Imagination is the only limit;

2. Any solution applied to an architectural object that speaks to a people’s sense of their past should be in harmony with good taste (aesthetics), good history, and good public relations, i.e., it should be respectful of the feelings of people who have to live with the object. Ocampo and it seems the entire Board of NHI do not reside in Calamba and do not have to suffer the pain of this aesthetic monstrosity;

3. It’s clear Ocampo is in error in many respects, lexically, aesthetically, architectuarally, strategically, tactically, etc. Now it seems he’s determined to get even more wrong (wronger or wrongest). Ocampo has triumphantly announced Boysen has offered to repaint Rizal’s home at no cost to the taxpayer (that’s you and me). So what does Ocampo decide? He will paint Rizal’s home a another shade green this time “dark green.” Which is to redefine his “racial” as the color of palay when it is most unsuitable for harvest.

There is a term for this, “Jumping from the frying fan to the fire.” The Germans have a term for this, schlimmbesserungen, which denotes making something worse through an attempt to make things better.

History is replete with examples of schlimbesserungen: the eighteenth-century correction of asparagus to sparrow-grass. An extreme example was the notion seriously thought of by John von Neuman (father of the electronic computer) and Edward Teller (father of the hydrogen bomb) who both enthusiastically proposed using nuclear explosions to deflect hurricanes.

Ocampo’s green solution may not be so devastating to the world but it may well be disastrous to Calamba’s people, at least.

Dr. Ocampo has to have enough humility, grace, and sense to accept the fact he’s wrong in painting the Rizal home green.

If he does not have the strength of character to admit an error publicly and to apologize to the people for a grave error, he can very well just announce the NHI now wants to consult the people of Calamba for them to decide what is the best solution that the people can live with, maybe even be proud of.

Science and religion is a big issue in the United States, and increasingly in other developed countries such as Australia, Canada and the UK. In other countries of the European Union, it was until recently a non-issue. During the early years of John Paul II's pontificate, the well known evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould who described himself as agnostic Jew, was invited to give a talk in the Vatican for priests who do science. He was the only layman non-Catholic billeted in a seminary within sight of Saint Peter's with two elderly Jesuits who asked him "Why is evolution STILL an issue in America?" Gould who stereotypically believed that Catholic priests are anti-evolution, was dumbfounded. Thus even in the center of the Vatican, evolution is a non-issue. Darwinian Theory is the litmus test to gauge acceptance of science in society.

Thus in America, many studies have tried to gauge acceptance of science and strength of religious belief. A recent issue of Scientific American estimates acceptance of evolution in the USA as around 33%, the lowest among OECD countries. The USA is a paradox. It is the most scientifically advanced nation but has the least acceptance of scientific truth. While the courts have struck down attempts of religious groups to give "equal time" to creationism and intelligent design in school as violative of the separation of church and state principle, the movement to do so continues.

In the Philippines, we do not have any quantitative and published data to show acceptance of science in society. If I recall correctly, the Ateneo de Manila once had a project to survey the misconceptions in science teaching in basic education. The intersection of religious belief and acceptance of scientific principles was part of this project. I don't know if the results have been released.

The Astronomical League of the Philippines and the Rizal Technological University (RTU) Astronomy Department sponsored a study to measure acceptance of scientific principles in astronomy among basic education teachers. The study conducted by Professor Jesus Rodriguez Torres surveyed 102 teachers' attitudes to certain astronomical concepts. In the question "Is the Earth the center of the universe" 31.37% of respondents said the "earth was immovable as stated in the Psalms" and 32.35% said that the writer of the Biblical passage couldn't have known that the Earth moves. Only 6.86% said the Bible was erroneous.

Prof. Torres was disturbed by respondents answer to the question "How long was the process of the formation of the universe?" 20.58% responded "six days" and 46.07% responded "6000 years based on 2 Peter 3:8"

The reader can download the pdf file and read the findings in their totality. What should make science teachers like me think about is that there is this reluctance TO CHALLENGE RELIGION when it comes to science. There is this reluctance to SAY THE BIBLE AND CHURCH ARE wrong when it comes to scientific fact.

There was a time when a student organization invited a creationist to speak at the Ateneo. The university allowed it but the Jesuit scientists lead by Fr Dan McNamara conducted a talk on science the next day and the day after explaining what the Catholic position on science is. A Catholic can say the Church is wrong when it says something scientific since the Church is not in the business of determining what is scientific or not even if it has priests who are scientists!

Readers may have misgivings on how the questions were framed but Torres' study is the first one published to tackle a previously "untouchable" subject in Philippine education. Even at the secular University of the Philippines, science professors are loathe to confront students' religious beliefs and how this affects their understanding of science. However once I had to warn a student that he will get a grade of 5.0 if he insisted on using religious explanations to answer a science exam and in oral reports in class. I warned him that preaching of a religion in class is inadmissable at UP and I won't hesitate to lodge a complaint. He dropped the course accordingly. But this case is extremely rare.

The one thing that disturbs me is that Torres' subjects are science teachers. Some students who belong to fundamentalist sects tell me that they are instructed by their ministers to just keep quiet, answer the questions as needed to pass the course and not to believe. Science teachers cannot impose belief but should be able to teach students to consider scientific concepts as plausible hypotheses. With a Bible Christian biology student, we came to this position after she talked to me about her quandaries. If she doesn't accept evolution as a hypothesis, then it is her own lookout for after she has logically considered the arguments, this affects how she understands nature.

However while Professor Torres and I are loathe to confront fundamentalism directly, there are instances when we have to do so.

As far as I know, the only reason for getting breast implants is for cosmetic purposes. So, when Presidential mouthpiece Lorelei Fajardo says that it was necessary for the President to get breast implants in the 80s, without giving the reasons why, I can’t help but scratch my head at this new idiocy of the Arroyo administration.

The issue of the President’s health, and how it is being handled by her spin doctors, has effectively captured the spotlight, and has once more given focus to the inadequacies of this administration.

It apparently all started last week, when the President supposedly submitted herself to self-quarantine after arriving from one of her numerous foreign trips (at our expense, but that’s fodder for another post), only for the public to learn that her hospitalization was for other reasons aside from the possibility of having contracted the dreaded A(H1N1) virus.

At first, Presidential spokespersons said that biopsies were done on lumps taken from the President’s breast and groin. Then the rumor of the President’s breast implants surfaced, and the whole issue took a left turn to the realm of fantasy.

Press Secretary Cerge Remonde initially denied the rumor, only to later appear before the media and confirm the existence of the implants. Then, yesterday, Fajardo came out about the supposed necessity of the implants. Of course, since the main purpose of breast implants is cosmetic in nature, one can only wonder at what sort of necessity this might be, although I’m certain that the Presidential mouthpieces will probably try to spin it in some way that they think the public can swallow.

While this seems a rather absurd issue for the media to be covering, the less-than-forthcoming stance of the Palace is disturbing, to say the least. How can we trust the government to tell us the truth when a more serious issue crops up? It brings back memories of the time of the late dictator Ferdinand Marcos, when his underlings covered up the fact that the dictator was suffering from lupus, in order to avoid any sign of weakness. However, much like the situation today, the cover up didn’t work.

This administration seems to have gotten so used to lying that, even with issues such as this, its first response is to lie first, and then scramble madly to do damage control when it gets found out. It’s not reassuring that our government appears to think that the Filipino people are so gullible that anything the government says will be readily believed. As it is, with each new revelation, it buries its credibility even deeper into the mud.

The 1982 Honduran Constitution prohibits the amendment of certain BEDROCK PROVISIONS, including, significantly, the term of office of the incumbent president, and prohibition against that incumbent from becoming the new President in the subsequent period as stated in Article 374 below.

TITULO VII: DE LA REFORMA Y LA INVIOLABILIDAD DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN
CAPITULO I
DE LA REFORMA DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN

ARTICULO 373.- La reforma de esta Constitución podrá decretarse por el Congreso Nacional, en sesiones ordinarias, con dos tercios de votos de la totalidad de sus miembros. El decreto señalará al efecto el artículo o artículos que hayan de reformarse, debiendo ratificarse por la subsiguiente legislatura ordinaria, por igual número de votos, para que entre en vigencia.
* Artículo interpretado por Decreto 169/1986

ARTICULO 374.- No podrán reformarse, en ningún caso, el artículo anterior, el presente artículo, los artículos constitucionales que se refieren a la forma de gobierno, al territorio nacional, al período presidencial, a la prohibición para ser nuevamente Presidente de la República, el ciudadano que lo haya desempeñado bajo cualquier título y el referente a quienes no pueden ser Presidentes de la República por el período subsiguiente.
* Artículo interpretado por Decreto 169/1986 

CAPITULO II
DE LA INVIOLABILIDAD DE LA CONSTITUCIÓN
 
ARTICULO 375.- Esta Constitución no pierde su vigencia ni deja de cumplirse por acto de fuerza o cuando fuere supuestamente derogada o modificada por cualquier otro medio y procedimiento distintos del que ella mismo dispone. En estos casos, todo ciudadano investido o no de autoridad, tiene el deber de colaborar en el mantenimiento o restablecimiento de su afectiva vigencia.

Serán juzgados, según esta misma constitución y las leyes expedidas en conformidad con ella, los responsables de los hechos señalados en la primera parte del párrafo anterior, lo mismo que los principales funcionarios de los gobiernos que se organicen subsecuentemente, si no han contribuido a restablecer inmediatamente el imperio de esta Constitución y a las autoridades constituidas conforme a ella. El Congreso puede decretar con el voto de la mayoría absoluta de sus miembros, la incautación de todo o parte de los bienes de esas mismas personas y de quienes se hayan enriquecido al amparo de la suplantación.

Now check out this Comment from "Alpha" on Fausta's Blog:

I am a Honduran, born and raised and still living in the country. I hold no allegiance to any party nor do I hold any preference. For those of you out there who still feel Honduras has acted rashly and “barbarically” against Manuel Zelaya there are things that should be clarified. Our constitution states in its “Articulos Petreos” (petreo deriving form the latin word for “rock” or “stone”) that a president may not be reelected and may not stay in the office for more than 4 years. This, was designed to protect us, the people, from the past experiences of political instabilities in the 70’s and 80’s.

Jose Manuel Zelaya Rosales, intended with his so called “survey” to promote the alteration of these articles so that a president may be reelected. In order to modify these articles, the ENTIRE constitution must be abolished, this is the first characteristic of a Coup d’etat. Without constitution, the Honduran people would be entirely unprotected from a regime emulating those of Venezuela, Ecuador, Bolivia and now Nicaragua in which the constitution is manipulated at will by the president so he might remain “constitutionally” in office for as long as his twisted heart desires.

It is also extremely important to point out, that the ballots that were to be used for the questionable survey, were provided by the Venezuelan government.

There were several inconsistencies and failures in president Zelaya’s time in the office. This year, he has not even turned in his national budget plan for 2009, overdue since September 2008. He has focused efforts on this survey of his for several months, despite a 7.4 earthquake, overflowing rivers, increasing crime rates. As a final thrust upon his own “Harakiri” process, he went through with his survey despite being declared illegal.

I am utterly proud of my country and am glad to be part of this social and political uproar, for the first time in many many years, Honduras has risen strong against corruption and oppression and sets an example for Latin America.

Whoever "Alpha" might be is not perhaps that important at this stage because the basic message comes through loud and clear about Mr. Zelaya's attempts to perpetuate his hold on power.  

The analysis of Charles Krauthammer is cogent and puts on spotlight an apparent inconsistency in President Barack Obama's handling of two situations: Iran and Honduras.

But the parallels with the Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and Honduran President Manuel Zelaya are striking.  We'll be discussing this matter today on The Explainer with Manolo Quezon on ABSCBN News All News Channel (ANC) at 6pm and 10:30 pm every Monday,  with replays all week and online. Catch it!

I've just posted a replay (without all the commercials and station breaks!) of the Media in Focus episode aired last Thursday on ANC and still in replay until Thursday, but available here for our commentaries and discussion. The participants are listed in the caption of the Video Clip. There are thumbnails from the broadcast and the entire video at the Archive, now. The central point of the discussion has to do with the relationship between professional or commercial journalism and the evolving genres of new media, such as blogging, facebooking, twittering, and various other manifestations of Web-related developments that deserve our scrutiny and understanding.

While summing up the thesis of World Bank economist Alessandro Magnoli Bocchi in “Rising Growth, Declining Investment: The Puzzle of the Philippines,” Cocoy has tried to explain the puzzle in his own words:

The answer according to the same policy paper (of Bocchi) is that while foreign direct investment has fallen since the 1990s, the local market has not picked up the slack. Big Business has refused to reinvest substantially. The World Bank blames the lack of reinvestment on lack of incentives to do so. Businesses are profiting now, so why go out of the way to reinvest capital more than necessary? The rot sets in.

BenignO has been quick to respond, quoting himself:

We pester the elite of our society with calls for acts of heroism when the burden of extra hard work in reality falls on the shoulders of the poor masses.

We Filipinos have been imbued with the idea that our hopes for prosperity lie squarely on the shoulders of the elite, the “haves,” a handful of leaders and/or a few “extraordinary” individuals. Our society has come to (or, more appropriately never matured beyond) a penchant for giving heroic labels to these “messiahs,” as if the Philippines is constantly waiting for a hero to rescue her from her dysfunction. We expect heroic efforts from the few and continued mediocrity from the majority. We expect the low product of the majority to be SUBSIDISED by the exceptional output of the minority.

When it comes to offering solutions to the Philippine puzzle, I proceed from a standpoint quite opposite to Benigno’s. Let me also quote myself to explain my point based on established historical facts:

There are historical patterns that if we care to seriously reflect on would inform us of certain repeated forces known to have driven great events, among which is this: That history is often made by people and institutions in power and by how their power is employed by them to produce goods and services for society through the development and use of science and technology or otherwise dominate other peoples and grow more power.

Great historical events are also made when people and institutions in power, perceived to have failed society, have been overthrown, thereby allowing new institutions and ideas to be developed and instituted by the succeeding power.

Powers of ordinary men, like you and me, (not to speak of the shirtless, shoeless and toothless) are often circumscribed. For example, we would like to believe that we have purposeful ideas and intentions for the Philippines, but we can only carry our purposes as far as our relative position in the hierarchy of powers can take us, unless of course we succeed in creating movements to match the strength of the powers that be.

So, in the Philippines, there are men and women, being in command of powerful institutions of modern society, whose decisions and non-decisions have immense consequences to our society. We do know that these special people own the financial establishments, control major corporations and organizations and for the most part “capture” the machinery of the state or, at the very least, have the ready ear of those who occupy positions of direct power.

There are thus dreadful consequences if our economic elites, the taipans or the old oligarchs for example, are risk averse, content as they seem with operating public utilities with captured markets, or mega malls and real estate ventures sustained by OWF remittances. Their lack of vigorous entrepreneurship translates into our economic engines not being propelled to create greater wealth and employment opportunities to provide decent incomes for a growing population of ordinary or less than ordinary people.

The above postulations comport with the “power elite theory” which, according to H. T. Reynolds, “perceives a pyramid of power” and where 1) the most important decisions for everyone below the pyramid is made at the top by a tiny elite; 2) a relatively small middle level consists of individuals that one normally would have in mind when talking about government, e.g., senators, representatives, mayors, governors, judges, lobbyists, and party leaders, and 3) the masses, the average men and women who are powerless to hold the top level accountable, occupy the bottom.

The power elite model of C. Wright Mills, the most renowned among power-elite theorists, as restated by H.T. Reynolds goes this way: “that single elite, not a multiplicity of competing groups, decides the life-and-death issues for the nation as a whole, leaving relatively minor matters for the middle level and almost nothing for the common person.”

Thus when “Big Business has refused to reinvest substantially” or, as Bocchi puts it, when politically-connected economic elites and corporate conglomerates in the Philippines find it convenient to not invest or invest only a portion of its revenues in-country, while sending considerable portions offshore, the consequence is slower economic growth in the country and less inclusive than it could potentially be.

I think I have had another occasion to reflect on the Philippine puzzle in a fairly recent response to a comment in FV in this fashion:

. . . why some nations have fared better than others in developing the institutions of capitalism, the late American political scientist Samuel P. Huntington . . . has pointed, among other things, to the “lack of national unity and the failure of dominant immigrant minorities (e.g., the Chinese Diaspora in the Philippines) to assimilate” and in the absence of such unity and assimilation, “there generally is no development of a legally, economically and politically empowered civil society concerned with the welfare of the entire nation and all its people.”

Citing liberal economist Jeffrey Sachs, Huntington also referred to “obstructive elites” whose interests are “vested in traditional conditions,” and “resist institutionalization of rule of law legal systems, norms of social mobility, and capitalist markets – all of which threaten their elite status.”

These insights are interesting if juxtaposed with benignO’s lavish adulation of the market dominant Filipino-Chinese community which he seems to characterize, quite naively, as homogeneous.

But here’s what Clinton Palanca, an Oxford postgraduate tsinoy, wrote on this score:

“The ideal of the ethnic Chinese who is integrated and thinks of himself or herself as Filipino while retaining Chinese cultural identity does exist, but so does the bigot who sees Filipinos as inferior and adopts a ‘sojourner’ mentality and an instrumental attitude toward the Philippine economy. These two figures form the endpoints of a spectrum along which the Chinese in the Philippines are ranged.”

Palanca however excluded the First Filipinos from his “range” (Rizal, Aguinaldo, Mabini, Bonifacio, etc who were of Chinese ancestry and the next generation, such as Osmena, Lopez, Roxas, Laurel and even Marcos not to speak of Cojuangco, Puyat, Ongpin, and the still monosyllabic Lims and Tans). The Villafuertes and Robredos of Bicol in the regional scene are descendants of more recent Chinese Diaspora but also outside of Palanca’s range.

The “Chinese” economic elites in the Philippines who own about sixty percent of market capitalization, in particular those rentier taipans with sojourner mentalities, are ultimately recipes for a lackluster national economic progress.

In another post I also pointed out that the “Chinese” in the Philippines were Hispanicized during the Friar regime and then Anglo-Americanized during Uncle Sam’s rule.

Now this again from Palanca about the chameleonic aspect of Chinese identity triggered this time by the awakened dragon or the “emergence of China as a dominant force in the Asian economy”:

“The descendants of the older Chinese mestizo classes, who had previously downplayed their Chinese ethnicity, are now suddenly rediscovering the Chinese aspect of their ethnicity. The generation of Chinese-Filipinos who had emigrated in the first half of the century in the years leading up to the communist takeover of China and their descendants are now held in higher regard. But what has the potential to become respect can easily swing the other way to distrust if the power of the Chinese-Filipinos is seen to be too dominant — or, more to the point, if they are seen not as Filipinos, but as an ethnic minority group who has gained an incommensurate degree of influence.”

I was likewise thinking of the market-dominant and oligopolistic minority when a couple of years ago I blogged about what it would really entail for the Philippines to position itself for “economic takeoff”:

Many parts of the country still retain the basic features of the so-called traditional society. A traditional society is one whose structure has limited production functions because of its incapacity to manipulate the environment through science and technology. To break from the conditions of a traditional society that put a ceiling on its attainable output, new types of enterprising men willing to take risks in pursuit of profit or modernization must come forward. The risk-taking must happen in conjunction with the appearance of institutions for mobilizing capital like banks, the investment in transport, communications, and in raw materials in which other societies may have an economic interest, and the setting up of manufacturing enterprises using modern methods. xxx

Takeoff however may not occur if the transition is proceeding at a limited stride in an economy still primarily typified by “traditional low-productivity methods,” by dated societal institutions and values, and by parochial political institutions.

The key to economic progress is somehow attitudinal too and this happens when economic men and political animals judge such progress to be good not only for the material comfort it brings forth for their pioneering spirit but also for national identity and dignity, the welfare of the next generation and the common good.

Historically, the decisive ingredient during the transition is the building of an “effective centralized national state” imbued with a “new nationalism” x x x. When growth becomes steady and normal and institutionalized into habits and social structure and dominates the society, takeoff is said to occur.

To economist Walt W. Rostow (his two seminal books are: The process of Economic Growth [1952] and The Stages of Economic Growth [1960]), from whose insights the above ideas are mainly culled, the takeoff is spurred not only by the investment in “social overhead capital” (such as in railways, ports, roads and education) and the expansion of technological development in industry and agriculture, but also by the rise to political power of a group dedicated to the proposition that the modernization of the economy is a national goal of paramount order (underscoring not in the original).

I therefore believe that the Philippines will attain “First World” status not by the action of the “ordinary schmoe” of the tingi variety (to borrow some of BenignO’s unflattering labels) but by men and women who are in command of powerful institutions of modern society. This is so, as I said in another comment, because -

. . . a nation like the Philippines attempting to modernize must first create economic surplus. This surplus will be long in coming if we follow BenigO’s formula of “culture change” first.

My route is economic take off first, then use the economic surplus created to promote and develop quality education, the ultimate telos being “democracy of the educated” to dispense with the need for “moral and intellectual aristocracy.”

I don’t see economic take off happening with “Juan Tama” or “Ako mismo” routes, because to me these are all diversion – much like the perpetual blaming of the government, the politicians, and the supposedly culturally damaged Juan Tamad – away from holding accountable those with the wherewithal to create wealth by vigorous entrepreneurship and a great sense of country.

Now, despite the retreat of BenignO’s heroes or their less “exceptional output,” why does the Philippine economy, while not taking off, manage to chug along somehow? Well, it is because of the extra hard work of non-elites or “the poor masses.”

Or, according to economist Bocchi in his research paper -

Because its least protected sectors - the informal labor market and the non-capital-intensive activities - stimulate demand and drive supply.

- On the demand-side, work-seekers – denied entry into the formal labor market migrate massively to industrialized economies, attracted by better remuneration; the resulting remittances and transfers (which, combined, account for over 13 percent of GDP) fuel consumption-led-growth (i.e. Filipinos abroad send money to their families in country, and these spend it).

- On the supply-side, the innovative service sector and a few non-capital-intensive manufactures, still free from regulations that favor the local élite, boost exports.

To Montesquieu, what is required of a republican government to thrive is virtue which he defines as “the love of the laws and of our country.”

Virtue is taken for granted when rent seeking elites bend the laws for private gains or would rather invest offshore than in-country.

Bocchi is also blunt about it in economic terms: “To accelerate economic growth, increase employment generation, and generate public resources for social programs, rent seeking by the élites that exercise political and economic power - or 'élite capture' - must be addressed.”

It is that simple.

I have a slight problem following scenarios like Gloria will run for Pampanga’s second district so she can become Prime Minister or that she will declare martial law with the help of her PMA “mistahs.”

Too many things have to fall into place, for the premiership scenario…

1. She wins the congressional race
2. She becomes Speaker
3. The House and the Senate agree to a con-ass
4. Con-ass shifts to parliamentary system
5. New constitution is approved in plebescite

And most important of all:

6. After June 30, 2010, Gloria will no longer be president. At best, she will be just another member of the Lower House, and a neophyte at that. Meanwhile, the new president will be The President. He will give way to Rep. Gloria? One will have to assume the new president will not want a full 6-year term, will not do everything in his power to remain in office. In short, one will have to assume he is insane.

As to the martial law scenario with the help of her PMA class…

It will be a replay of history because Gloria’s generals will have to stay on past retirement. As a result, the promotions system will have a ceiling. And that will breed unrest among the officer corps. She and her generals will have to divide and conquer the corps through bribery and intimidation. But history has shown that those tactics have their limits, Gloria will not live forever. Neither will her core group of generals. Consequently, when the question of succession looms, the whole thing will fall apart.

What is the most likely scenario after June 30, 2010? Who knows? Desperate people do crazy things. But the best scenario is for Gloria to realize that there will be a lot of noise to bring her to justice but it’s going to be only noise. She will get away with it because that’s the way it is in this Enchanted Kingdom.

“Uneasy are the shoulders that bear four stars.”

This is a not-too-cryptic line shared with me by a senior journalist covering Camps Aguinaldo and Crame and two military officers when I sought to reconfirm the incessant reports about Oplan August Moon.

“The rivalry between the generals from PMA Classes ’76 and ’78 is fueling the rumors even as military intelligence investors have separately obtained leads indicating the possible involvement of the political opposition in the plot,” my sources told me.

(L-R: IBRADO, BANGIT, VERSOZA, ROSALES)

“They are trying not to be drawn into it but Lt. Gen. Victor Ibrado and Director-General Jesus Versoza, AFP Chief of Staff and PNP chief respectively, cannot prevent their mistahs from talking.“

The two military officers said, "there’s no question about their loyalty to the Flag," but the two other generals “waiting in the wings” are becoming the focus of intrigue because they are next in line to Generals Ibrado and Versoza.

The two being referred to are military intelligence chief Delfin Bangit and national capital region commander Roberto Rosales.

Director Rosales, who is president of PMA Class ’78, is widely respected in the police corps ,“while Director-General Versoza “has seen his slate affected by the recent ‘Euro generals scandal and question about his management skills.”

“In the case of Bangit, intrigue heightened when Malacanang itself announced he was the successor of recently retired CoS Jose Yano only for the announcement to be cancelled without explanation,” my two sources noted.”

That was then followed by the promotion of Gen. Ibrado as chief of staff with Yano being named ambassador to Brunei,

“The military brass, of course, respect the prerogative of their Commander in Chief (Pres. Gloria Macapagal Arroyo) to “change her mind and undertake deep selection,” my sources, speaking on condition of anonymity, said.

The bigger revelation my journalist source shared is this: a top-ranking general told me "intelligence probers are closely examining a document referring to important event/s which may take place between August and October.”

The document allegedly "makes reference to former President Joseph Estrada’s political group Pwersa ng Masang Pilipino."



My source would not go further when asked if Mr. Estrada himself could be implicated to the so-called ‘Oplan August Moon’ except to say “we don’t know if there is an actually military-format Operation Plan except what has been referred to verbally in the Camps.”

(This writer is trying to get the side of Mr. Estrada.)

"The improvised bombs recently used or left at the Department of Agriculture, the Office of the Ombudsman and privately-owned condominium Burgundy One Place appears to be the work of amateurs and not ordnance experts."

(ARCHIVE PICTURES)

Note: C-4 is a high quality, very high velocity military plastic explosive.
C4 is supplied in bulk drums, in a slightly powdery form. Upon manipulation the material immediately consolidates into a rubbery fully plasticised mass which may be kneaded and pressed into any shape. The material has excellent mechanical and adhesive properties, and may be stretched into long strands without breakage.
In its original powdery form the explosive may be poured into charge containers, then pressed into intimate contact with the liner.

“We believe the C-4 explosives were not sourced from anywhere in Metro Manila but could only have come from Mindanao,” my sources revealed.

Speaking separately to journalists yesterday, Senator Rodolfo Biazon, a former chief of staff and seasoned field commander in Mindanao, said his doubts about the possible involvement of national security adviser Norberto Gonzales.

The online report of ABS-CBN News says in part:

Sen. Rodolfo Biazon on Thursday assailed National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales for contributing to the climate of instability by downplaying bomb-related incidents in Metro Manila this week.

“I’m not talking about specifics, whether administration or opposition. But to hear the national security adviser say about the need for a revolution, the putting up of a junta, the putting up of a transition government is fuelling all of these speculative conclusions,” Biazon said in a radio dzMM interview.

The senator added he could not believe Gonzales’s cold reaction to the bombing of the Office of the Ombudsman and the attempted bombing of the Department of Agriculture offices in Quezon City.

Gonzales and the military had said that the bombing attempts are part of a trend that usually happens before the President's State of the Nation Address (SONA).

The statements were made in reaction to allegations that some people in the administration are creating a scenario that may be used to justify the declaration of emergency rule.

Biazon alleged that the real root cause of the destabilization scenarios is none other than Gonzales.

The senator said Gonzales has been advocating a revolution and the establishment of a junta to be led by President Arroyo.

He recalled that Gonzales raised this during a seminar conducted by the Center for Strategic Studies in Davao City in 2006 for junior military officers.

“Three years ago, Gonzalez conducted a seminar in military camps, and he said there is a need for a revolution, from liberal democracy to social democracy,” Biazon said.

He said the junior officers in the seminar were told that the Armed Forces of the Philippines, as the only sector with “the power of the gun,” can carry out such revolution.

http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/07/02/09/biazon-hits-gonzales-view-metro-bombings

The events of the coming days or weeks can either heighten the apprehensions or ease public disquiet.

While the ouster of Honduran President Manuel Zelaya last Sunday could serve as a stern warning to President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo (GMA) - and perhaps an encouragement to the military - that tinkering with the Constitution to extend her tenancy in Malacañang is a risky move, it could on the contrary embolden GMA in pursuing her nefarious political agenda.

The parallels between the Philippines and Honduras are uncanny. As we all know very well GMA's allies in Congress have been assiduously pushing for charter change by resolving to convene a con-ass. Zelaya's ouster was precipitated by his insistence on having a constitutional convention (con-con). Both moves are seen as attempts to extend the president's term of office. GMA's allies want to proceed with a con-ass even without the Senate (clearly unconstitutional), while Zelaya wants a referendum on the convening of a con-con without congressional authorization as required by Honduras's constitution.

While GMA's supporters may argue that she has nothing to do with the cha-cha efforts in Congress, there is convincing evidence to the contrary. The prime movers of cha-cha in Congress belong to GMA's party and it is safe to say that as president GMA has a strong involvement on this issue. Also, the recent admission by former DOJ Secretary Raul Gonzalez, one of GMA's most trusted advisers, that GMA has every reason to remain in power either as president or prime minister to immunize herself from suits, is a very persuasive argument for GMA's involvement.

Going back to Honduras, it is disappointing to know that the international community - including the UN, Organization of American States, and the US - was quick to condemn the removal of Zelaya and announce its disapproval of the existing government, given the background of Zelaya and what prompted his removal. A review of what happened in Honduras shows that it was Zelaya who first committed constitutional shortcuts by disregarding the Honduran Congress in calling for a referendum to amend the constitution. The Honduran Supreme Court, backed by the attorney general, ruled that Zelaya's call for a referendum was unconstitutional. Zelaya defied the Supreme Court ruling by firing the army chief who refused to support Zelaya's self-initiated referendum. This prompted the military, in support of the Supreme Court's ruling, to arrest Zelaya. As a result of this the Honduran Congress installed Roberto Micheletti, the constitutional successor to the president.

Now there is much debate whether the removal of Zelaya could be considered as a coup. While there was a seeming disconnect at first between the US State Department and White House's characterization of the event, President Obama finally stopped equivocating by calling the removal as a coup and an illegal one at that. I am not sure what the Honduras Constitution says about the removal of the president (whether it could only be done through impeachment), but there is argument to the effect that Zelaya was arrested for flagrant violation of the constitution and it was not the military that took power but rather his constitutional successor, Micheletti, and the Honduran Congress approved this.

But coup or not, there is no debate that Zelaya violated the Honduran Constitution when he tried to pursue a referendum on cha-cha without congressional authorization. None of those who disapprove of Zelaya's ouster dispute this. Despite Zelaya's brazen disregard of Honduras's Constitution and defiance of the Supreme Court, however, the international community remained mum on this issue and instead chose to look only at his ouster by the military. The outrage against constitutional violation is one-sided. By the way there is strong public support among Hondurans for Zelaya's removal; like GMA he is not a popular president.

This lopsided view from the international community could embolden GMA in acting á la Zelaya. It tells us that no matter how brazenly the president may commit constitutional shortcuts it would now be at the risk of being internationally condemned and isolated to overthrow her; that a people power backed by the military may no longer be acceptable as EDSA I or EDSA II was. The administration might just capitalize on this development in discouraging the people and the military from resorting to another people power to unseat an extended GMA presidency or, perhaps, a GMA prime ministership.

President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo will go down in history as the only Malacanang tenant to seriously consider the importance of investing in big scale science infrastructure. While previous presidents have paid lip service to the importance of science, their words did not match the budget appropriations, until Gloria came around.

Gloria has issued an executive order creating a national science complex at University of the Philippines (UP) Diliman. While the idea of a science complex/campus had been floated as early as the 1970s it became a distinct possibility in 1983, when the UP's science college was established, But it was only during the latter half of the Aquino and Ramos presidency when buildings were constructed. However the complex was left unfinished as budget allocations were small. During the Erap presidency science took a backseat. In the Arroyo presidency, the complex was allocated 3 B PhP.

The money has been spent in completing the physics and math buildings, erect the chemistry, biology, molecular biology, environmental science and science administration buildings. The money also allowed for the completion of the road network to service these buildings. These buildings form the important core of basic science disciplines that hopefully can let the country play catch up with Asian countries with respect to science. The only thing missing in this complex is a medical sciences institute. Medicine if it ever can contribute to and benefit from Philippine science should be integrated with the NSC as the case in top universities overseas. Unfortunately the organizational structure of UP leaves the medical sciences in UP Manila.

However, once more former UP Visayas chancellor and Professor of Marine Sciences Flor Lacanilao sheds light on another problem that has hardly little to do with science infrastructure but more on science manpower. But before we go into the negatives, let us dwell on the positives first. UP and the top universities in the country has largely realized that real academic reform lies with promoting research and publication. The benefits of these will filter down to state of the art teaching thereby improving the main function of a university. But as Lacanilao writes, there are counter-productive processes in universities that may make the multi-billion peso investment in science infrastructure redundant. This I believe is largely cultural. For instance, the doctoral degree is still seen as the culmination of a research career whilst in reality, this is the basic qualification. Research performance is best measured in the number of papers published and citation indexes. But in many Philippine universities these measures are not often used.

Another problem that hampers science development in the Philippines is the lack of good research mentors. This has been often raised by UP science dean Prof. Caesar Saloma. The only cure for this problem is to promote and give incentive to research and research faculty members as based on merit and not on seniority.

However a science or in more general terms academic, meritocracy will require a paradigm shift Philippine universities. In the Philippines we hear of people WANTING to be chair, but in overseas universities, people AVOID the Chairmanship like the plague. Administrative duties take time from research and research is the way that promotions are measured. But unfortunately someone has to be the chair!

I hate the misuse of the term 'ecology" in deciding faculty appointments. The appointments in this system are designed not to disturb the "ecology" of positions in a department. In this culture, seniority is the main criterion in promotions and tenure. In a meritocracy, there are measurable indices for assessing academic performance.

Lacanilao suggests that UP focuses more on graduate training rather than undergraduate training. But this is not good politic and won't be bought by Congress (or the Parliament after 2010!). What UP can do is to develop certain campuses as graduate campuses (presumbably the NSC will become this) while other campuses can be developed as centers of undergraduate training. But it has to be considered that excellent graduate training is synergistic with excellent undergraduate training. It is obvious that good talent comes from the undergraduate sector. The promising talents need to be identified at the undergrad level and be encouraged to go into graduate school.

The idea that UP focuses on graduate teaching and research and let other universities focus on undergraduate teaching isn't new. In 1947, Professor Merill of Michigan gave a speech to convocation at UP precisely suggesting this path.

The Philippines still lacks scientists. While we have more PhDs now than 30 years ago, we still have not developed critical mass in many of the disciplines. This hinders development of more scientists. Most of the PhDs are lone experts.

Masterfully played by dishonored Erap Estrada, the populist rhetoric is now being employed by the contenders for the presidency. In impoverished and developing countries where poverty is prevalent, taking a populist stand can get you places. It can make a monster appear angelic in the eyes of the poor. It is a very successful way of winning the hearts and minds of the people especially those who "think" that you can relate to them. It gets into one's nerves at times. Take the case of Manny Villar who takes you back in youth and tries to convince you that he is poor. Everytime his commercial comes up, I quickly change the channel.

But the practice has gotten Hugo Chavez to perpetual power and has somehow legitimized his presidency despite subverting their constitution. The same cannot be said about Manuel Zelaya of the Honduras who was kicked out of office by the Honduran army. Zelaya tried to change their constitution in the guise of change. At least the Honduran judiciary and congress were independent enough to abide by their laws. But the people of Honduras who have been tricked into believing that reforms are coming continue to support Zelaya who is a member of the oligarchy. Now if only the world could accept that democracy can be manipulated.

Gloria Arroyo is also using the populist strategy through her "social programs" aimed at the poor. The difference is that Filipinos are now more discerning. Her advantage however comes from a weak judiciary and a congress who seems to be fond of "loot bags" and junkets. Will the populist rhetoric work its magic for the contenders in 2010? I don't think so. The Villars are not so popular with their constituents nor with investors whom they've eased out to give way to their businesses. I should know, I was one of their victims. Mar Roxas may have a shot but has to change his strategy at some point to a more believable one.

Only time can tell if indeed this ploy still works. Judging from the dynamic Philippine political landscape, this may not be a formula for success.

"If North Korea is saber-rattling on the part of their dear leader, here we are titillating. But you can call what is happening in the Philippines as also saber-rattling. Well, on the Korean side they’re also titillating. Pero mas maganda yung ating expression." – Fidel V. Ramos

Former President Fidel Ramos refuses to go away. Before he left for a conference in Mumbai, he advised Gloria Arroyo to fess up and reveal her plans post-2010. Upon his return, he suggested to Arroyo that she try to resolve the impasse over North Korea’s nuclear weapons program.
"Our efforts should be on the diplomatic side because we have diplomatic relations with North Korea."

He said it would be worth her while to mediate the conflict because, if the situation deteriorates into a nuclear face-off, trade among Asian nations will suffer.
"That is the biggest damage that could happen in the Philippines."

He also reminded Arroyo that there were 50,000 Filipinos who live and work in South Korea.
Arroyo should listen to Ramos. He is not making light talk. He has seen her attend all sorts of international conferences, dishing out unsolicited advice to world leaders on matters ranging from the global financial crisis to global warming. He believes she can talk some sense into Kim Jong-Il.

She could be the right person to do it. My research showed that Kim and Gloria are soul mates.
A backgrounder on Kim, prepared by Global Security Org., shows that Kim, like Gloria, is a micro-manager.

“Kim Jong-il micro-manages every detail of government business. Kim Jong-il created a system of summarizing an account of events from all over North Korea into a daily report format during consolidation of his power within the party. Even county or municipal parties are to report directly to the party center if the event is deemed significant enough to warrant its attention. (Party center is the term North Koreans use to refer to Kim)
And they have similar personalities.

“Kim Jong-il's impatience and extemporaneous behavior contrasts markedly with Kim Il-sung's magnanimity and charisma. The elder Kim was mindful of advice from others, while Kim Jong-il is arrogant and self-centered in policy decision. In addition, the junior Kim does not take kindly to criticism or opinions different from his own. Kim Jong-il's personality can be characterized by suspicion, and is extremely emotional in his expression of his likes and dislikes, which borders on double personality.”

Further investigation uncovered more parallels.

They both majored in economics; he on Marxist political economy, she on capitalism and neither one of them has anything to show for it other than a “military-first” policy to maintain power amid economic decay.

Both have dealt head on with their countries’ hunger problems. Kim heard about rabbits the size of dogs so he decided that breeding giant rabbits was the solution to North Korea’s famine. Gloria’s husband saw that many of the nation’s hungry were toothless so he decided to donate free dentures to those with nothing to eat.

Kim spends his country’s resources on nuclear power development. Gloria spends it on political power enhancement.

Both appreciate a good drink. He gets drunk on Hennessy, she on power.

Both are avid golfers. His propaganda bureau claims he routinely shoots three or four holes-in-one each time he plays a round. She does not publicize her scores but, like Kim, she has a propaganda bureau that will tell you anything she wants you to hear.

Kim is retiring for health reasons. She is not retiring, also for health reasons.
The list of similarities is far from complete.