It’s sooooo annoying talaga,  these people! Grabe! (Or words to that effect)

It’s not me talking but Mr. Conrad De Quiros in yesterday’s Inquirer. In his almost apoplectic excoriation of the exponents of “Noynoying”, he takes everything and everyone to task, from Wikipedia to leftist youth groups to Manny Villar (?). Villar is as trapo as they come, but to connect him to the rising phenomena of Noynoying is stretching it a bit far.

Calling it puerile and a “horrendous contratemps”, De Quiros equates Noynoying as breaking faith with President Aquino’s “heroic” and “epic” efforts to fight corruption. He fears that that the spread of Noynoying would be playing into the hands of Gloria Arroyo’s propagandists and lead the young to perdition and the country to ruin.

Lighten up, comrade Conrad.

Noynoying is not going to weaken the fight against corruption or render it superficial or unimportant in the minds of the people. If all it takes is the simple act of taking  “an effortless pose, or activity consisting of sitting or standing around, in an unconcerned manner” to derail the so-called fight against corruption, then there was nothing behind it in the first place but empty air.

And it’s not out of sync with events; it’s really more in tune with the prevailing zeitgeist. In the age of social media,  such stunts are valid  and acceptable forms of self-expression.

His tiresome finger-wagging notwithstanding, De Quiros was right in giving the youthful demonstrators who brought forth Noynoying proper credit for creativity. They gave a humorous, politically-meaningful and very Filipino  twist to  the largely mindless fad of planking (” to lay horizontally in a strange and unusual place” according to Urban distionary) It’s all in good fun, albeit with a serious message for the administration of P-Noy.

And therein lies the reason why people like De Quiros find Noynoying about as funny as a heart attack. It hits a raw nerve and is too uncomfortably close to the truth.

Noynoying is political satire and street theater in a neat package. But in its parody of the laid-back governance of President Aquino, it eloquently transmits the rising perception that nobody is at the wheel. According to Ramon Tulfo, The President apparently spends much of his time lately just watching the impeachment trial of his arch-enemy, Chief Justice Renato Corona instead of attending to pressing matters of state. Not to begrudge him his afternoon entertainment, but there are urgent matters clamoring to be addressed, not least of which are rising oil prices and the resulting hardships and civil unrest which gave rise to Noynoying.

Even the Wall Street Journal has taken notice of this phenomenon. According to a report by James Hookway, “ Basically, Noynoying involves sitting around staring into space, much like Mr. Aquino supposedly does instead of running the country”. Mr. Hookway also makes unflattering references to a staple character of Philippine folk tales, Juan Tamad. Pretty accurate, in the view of a number of people who would normally support the programs espoused by P-Noy. We want him to succeed, they say, as he is our President, for good or ill, for the next four years. But he cannot be effective unless he gets serious about the admittedly difficult and dirty job of attending to the needs of 90 million Filipinos.

But this is not a video game anymore. It behooves the President to pay attention to what Noynoying is trying to say and not dismiss it as an irrelevant fad. Behind the humor, the message is deadly serious.

 
———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

The case of alleged sexual harassment raised by Cristy Ramos against 2 members of the Philippine national football team, the widely (and wildly) popular Azkals, has brought the issue of sexual harassment into the forefront once more, this time in the area of team sports.

The details of the incident has been widely reported elsewhere, and need not be repeated here. Suffice it to say that it has led to wide, and sometimes acrimonious, debate online and off among those who would condemn the perceived sexual “offenders” and those who would defend, or at least offer explanations for,  their actions.

First the disclaimer: The Ramos sisters were good friends and our neighbors at the subdivision where we grew up. The Ramoses are family friends, FVR and my dad having gone to college together. However, we drifted apart during our college years, having attended different schools, although I would bump into the recently-departed Jo once in awhile, she being a popular campus figure in U.P. Diliman.  I would also see Cristy’s husband, Freddy Jalasco, socially from time to time although I have not seen him in years.

There are two particular articles which I found most enlightening, all the more so for being from the point of view of women who are no strangers to the atmosphere and psychology of men’s team sports. One is by Lia Cruz (Sexual Harassment in mens’ locker room should be challenged) and the other by Mika Palileo (What is sexual harassment? On Sofia Cristina and the woman question), both at the AksyonTV website. Their insights are fascinating and cast light on one of the darker aspects of popular sports.

But the question remains, is it sexual harassment ?

Not by the provisions of the Anti-Sexual Harassment Act of 1995 (R.A. 7877) , which defines sexual harassment as committed by “ any other person who, having authority, influence or moral ascendancy over another in a work or training or education environment, demands, requests or otherwise requires any sexual favor from the other, regardless of whether the demand, request or requirement for submission is accepted by the object of said Act.” Thus, the harasser must be: 1) a teacher, boss, coach , trainer or person having moral authority over the victim; and 2) made in a work, training or educational environment; 3) where a sexual favor is asked or required. The elements of sexual harassment, at least as it is defined under Philippine law,  are not present.  Neither does the incident fall under “Acts of Lasciviousness” as punished under Articles 336 and 339 of the Penal Code, since there seemed to be no force, threat,  violation or overt intimidation. Neither was there physical contact.

Can it then be considered as “Unjust Vexation” under Article 287 of the Penal Code ? It has certainly vexed the victim.

According to the Supreme Court in Baleros, Jr. vs. People (G.R. No. 138033, February 22, 2006, 483 SCRA 10) , Unjust Vexation is “broad enough to include any human conduct which, although not productive of some physical or material harm, would unjustly annoy or irritate an innocent person. The paramount question is whether the offender’s act causes annoyance, irritation, torment, distress or disturbance to the mind of the person to whom it is directed.” By the permissive definition in the Baleros ruling (and similar earlier rulings), and the fact that the crime of Unjust Vexation is vague and undefined in the Penal Code, a case for the subject offense can be made against the Askal bad boys.

However, this will involve a long-drawn criminal trial to prove what would in the end be considered a “light offense” (maximum penalty: 30 days jail time which would be subject to probation and a P200.00 fine). And the perpetrators, who happen to hold dual citizenships, could avoid facing the music by simply staying away from the Philippines. And I would imagine that, ultimately, it would be an unsatisfying verdict even if proven.  The crime of Unjust Vexation is so vague, unclear and so far removed from what we know to be the common concept  of Sexual Harassment that, for purposes of example, deterrence or vindication of crimes against women, it just will not do.

But what recourse does a woman have, apart from seeking administrative sanctions as Cristy Ramos has done before the Asian Football Confederation  (AFC) ?

Call me biased, but I believe a criminal offense, or at least an act which should be considered a criminal offense, may have been committed. And I’m sick and tired and ashamed, as a man, of hearing the usual “boys-will-be-boys” defense  which says that popular athletes  are not responsible for their acts and unjustly places the onus on the victim.

That it should happen to Cristy Ramos, is doubly troubling. Putting aside the fact that she was a presidential daughter, this is a lady who knows her football. She was an outstanding varsity athlete at UPLB and a mainstay of the Philippine national women’s football team.  She’s no stranger to locker rooms. And it should be emphasized that Ms. Ramos was at the locker room before the Philippines-Malaysia friendly on official business , as a commissioner and  officer of the AFC. That she should be subject to such blatant disrespect, given her stature, makes one fear for any ordinary Filipina who might stray the Azkals way. Weren’t they already involved in one such incident in which a women claimed she was harassed at an Azkals’ gathering ?

Unfortunately, we seem to be caught in a quandary, as far as the law is concerned. Clearly, our legal concept of sexual harassment should be expanded to include cases not covered by a work, training or educational environment.  This is dangerous ground, admittedly, as a broad concept of sexual harassment might put a lot of us men in trouble. A wider-ranging law can be a potent weapon against the guilty but can just as easily be used to oppress the innocent.

At the moment, we’re in a situation described by U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart in attempting to  categorize pornography in Jacobelis vs. Ohio (1964). His famous phase “I know it when I see it”  describes our present dilemma.   To paraphrase Mr. Justice Potter,  I may not be able to define precisely or exactly categorize the crime committed, but I know it when I see it. Cristy Ramos certainly knew it when she experienced it.
———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Death is one of the most universal of taboos. Not the rituals of grief, burial and mourning which are many, varied and almost always public in character. I mean the actual act of dying. This most mysterious of earthly transitions is done in private, even for the most well-known of persons, with a few family and close friends in attendance and maybe a man or woman of God around to ease the way.

Public deaths, on the other hand, serve a social purpose. For instance, public executions are meant to be cathartic events in which society extracts its pound of flesh, as it were. It supposedly serves as a deterrent to criminal or aberrant behavior and reflects the manner by which justice is served within a community. It’s also morbidly entertaining and can even be interactive, such as in the practice of stoning or the spectators’ participation in the gory events in the Roman Colosseum.

Other public deaths, such as the assassination of Ninoy Aquino, serve as a catalyst for social upheaval and change.

Suicide is a more complicated phenomenon in which no easy generalizations can be made. It can be done privately or in plain of view others, but even the most secretive act of taking one’s life assumes a public aspect upon the discovery of the body. The act itself is shocking under any circumstance, being so contrary to what we normally know and expect of human behavior. Thus, the ripple effects of a suicide extend beyond the immediate family or social circle of the victim to the society at large. I knowingly use the word “victim” as I believe those who kill themselves are casualties of one or another of life’s events which makes continued living unbearable. However, some suicides are more publicly significant that others.

The suicide of Mohamed Boazizi, a young Tunisian who immolated himself in protest over the oppressive and autocratic rule of strongman Zine el Abidine Ben Ali and led to his ouster, is a public death. It started a conflagration which has spread to Egypt and threatens to engulf the entire region. In 60 years, there has never been one case of a successful, popular revolt toppling an Arab regime; now, within a span of 2 months, two governments in the Middle East have fallen.

The suicide of Anglo Reyes is a public death, as he led a public life which, for good or ill, “shaped and reflected the events of his time“. As explained by Prof. Randy David:

Although he was a professional military man, Angelo T. Reyes became a key player in the nation’s political stage. Whether he welcomed it or not, he unexpectedly found himself, as head of the Armed Forces, thrust into the role of political arbiter during the crisis of January 2001. At that crucial moment, the military became, once again, the deciding factor in an unstable political equation. Reyes made the decision to lead his soldiers in withdrawing support from President Joseph Estrada, paving the way for the accession to the presidency of Vice President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo.

Having cast his lot with GMA, Mr. Reyes prospered for a long while, even after he retired from military service. He assumed numerous cabinet posts, in fact too many, according to his detractors. This may have been his undoing as he should have sought elective position earlier, and retained some degree of political power and influence, before he was permanently tarred by the corrupt brush of the shamelessly venal Arroyo administration.

Stripped of political influence, he knew that he was vulnerable. He had a thorough understanding of how the political system works—its hypocrisy, its rottenness, and its rituals of degradation. But he could not summon enough will to bow to its sometimes brutal ways once he found himself at the receiving end of power.

And so he ended his life. And this is not always the easy way out, as many would like to believe. It takes a certain amount to steel in one’s personality to pull the trigger.

On a certain level, his motivation was certainly self-serving. He was, by his own estimation, extremely self-assured, even arrogant in the eyes of others. He wanted to regain some control over events which now threatened to destroy him, his family and what he saw as his historical legacy, most specially as a professional soldier. His suicide was premeditated and not an impulsive act, which are how most suicides are seen by those who study the phenomenon. Angelo Reyes knew what he was doing. He said so himself. In his “last” interview he stated pointedly:

Living life without honor is a tragedy bigger than death itself.

He could have stonewalled and gone the legal route in deflecting the accusations against him. Others have done so and lived to tell the tale (as well as enjoy their ill-gotten wealth). But this was not the soldier’s way. As a warrior, honor impelled him to fall on his sword. In doing so, he was successful to some extent in saving his good name and dignity. This is an example which others similarly situated should consider following, for their own sake and, more importantly, for the good of the country.

The tragedy of Angelo Reyes is that, despite his avowed intention to “come clean”, in the end he did not. He lacked the courage to name names and help cleanse the institutions which he served so loyally and bravely. And he tried to minimize his role by saying, truthfully enough, that: “I did not invent corruption. I walked into it“. But he lacked the will to walk out of it, until the only way he could leave was horizontally and feet first.

Be that as it may, the man is dead, and we condole with his family and friends as “Taps” is played today for a fallen warrior.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Philippine Star columnist Yoly Villanueva-Ong wrote an impassioned piece in support of the discredited and scrapped “Pilipinas Kay Ganda” branding campaign of the Department of Tourism. Ms. Villanueva-Ong is the founder and head of the Campaigns and Grey ad agency, which helped conceptualize the aborted undertaking. By her own admission, she is not a disinterested observer.

In rather purple prose, she expressed her indignation at the “coordinated online outrage” by a “Gruesome Malicious Army” and “net-dicts” intending “to wreck havoc on the new, popular government“. It’s GMA and her stooges and a shadowy cabal “who fancy themselves divas of righteousness” behind all this, you see, and it’s all politically-motivated. “Politically-motivated” being the standard, catch-all retort of those caught in the act of bending the rules for their own benefit.

But this argument skirts the central issue of the whole brouhaha, which is that the whole concept was a bad idea to begin with and was simply called out for being what it was – a bad idea. And which is why the head of the new, popular government shelved the whole scheme.

And Ms. Villanueva-Ong, with her Harvard degree (as she takes pains to point out in her article), is dead wrong about there being an orchestrated, unified effort to stick it to the vanguard of the new, popular government (as personified by DOT Usec Vicente “Enteng” Romano, the brains behind the slogan/logo fiasco). By this, she presumably means an attack utilizing social networking sites like Twitter and Facebook and other online communities. Ms. Villanueva-Ong misses the point of what social networking is all about, which is simply to foster social interaction. It’s not primarily to bring about social or political change, although that may well happen. But at its core, social-networking is simply people wanting to connect with other like-minded people. There is no sinister, hidden agenda.

Malcolm Gladwell explains this lucidly in his article in the New Yorker (October 2010) “Small Change: Why the Revolution Will Not Be Tweeted” in which he explains why Tweeter and other new tools of social media will not necessarily be an effective tool for social activism. Gladwell makes a distinction between “strong-tie” groups, for example the nascent Al Qaeda, characterized by a tight, hierarchical organization and pre-existing interpersonal ties between members and what he calls “weak-ties” groups, like Twitter or Facebook, which are loose, democratic and decentralized.

“The platforms of social media are built around weak ties. Twitter is a way of following (or being followed) by people you may never have met. Facebook is a tool for efficiently managing your acquaintances, for keeping up with the people you would not otherwise be able to stay in touch with. That’s why you can have a thousand “friends” on Facebook, as you never could in real life.

The evangelists of social media don’t understand this distinction: they seem to believe that a Facebook friend is the same as a real friend xxx.

Because networks don’t have a centralized leadership structure and clear lines of authority, they have real difficulty reaching consensus and setting goals. They can’t think strategically; they are chronically prone to conflict and error. How do you make difficult choices about tactics or strategy or philosophical direction when everyone has an equal say?”

No one can manage, must less control, the denizens of cyberspace and point them one direction. It’s like herding cats, as I’ve heard it said more than once. At best, social networks can disseminate information and ideas. But concepts, abstractions and theories, once thrown unto the online free market of ideas, live or die on their on merits.

I’m sorry to disappoint Ms. Villanueva-Ong, but there is no movement out there which wants her “stoned, flayed, crucified and burned at the stake“. I can understand her disappointment though because, as she herself reported: “the fight is not about who should lead the marketing effort, but who will disburse the marketing monies“.

This is another clear example of the paranoia afflicting the stalwarts of the new, popular government. They see enemies lurking in every bush, woodpile and website. They refuse to acknowledge the plain, though painful, truth that the cause of all their woes is their own arrogance, ineptitude and cluelessness.

One final word. What is to me very disturbing about Ms. Villanueva-Ong’s article is her saying that the P4.7 million or U.S. $ 105,000 (her own calculations) misspent on the “preview” launch of the “Pilipinas Kay Ganda” concept is a “paltry” sum spent for “food, drinks, fireworks, talents, staging etc.”. For her, maybe, P5 million is small change. But for many Filipinos like me, who have never been near much less had at my disposal such an amount, this is a king’s ransom. Scores of our countrymen die each day for want of even a minuscule fraction of what Ms. Villanueva-Ong considers paltry. And lest Ms. Villanueva-Ong forget, this is the Filipino people’s money, paid for by the blood, sweat, tears and even lives of Filipinos here and abroad. We have a right, as taxpayers, to a proper accounting. We have a right, as Filipinos, to be outraged.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Almost four year ago, I wrote an entry “Flying the Coop” in which I observed:

A recent news item says that more pilots have been leaving the country for greener pastures overseas. Philippine Airlines, Inc. (PAL) has lost about 20% of its pilots over the last three years and more are about to fly the coop. This is an alarming development in our continuing brain drain. Even our best trained and highest compensated professionals are packing their bags. A desperate policy resolution from the Philippine Overseas Employment Administration limiting the number of pilots who can work for international airlines has failed to stem the tide.

Things have apparently gotten worse since. Over the weekend, at least 23 international and domestic PAL flights have been cancelled due to the fact that there were no pilots to fly PAL planes. Eight more flights were cancelled today.

Apparently, a critical number of PAL’s A320 Airbus pilots resigned and immediately left for more lucrative posts overseas, without giving sufficient notice or allowing for enough time to bring replacements on board. This prompted PAL management to threaten legal action against the fleeing aviators, citing flagrant violations of their training and employment contracts. Unfortunately, going to court won’t solve PAL’s woes. The judicial process will just drag on without addressing the fundamental reality that PAL cannot compete with the wages and perks being offered by other airlines in the Asia-Pacific region and the Middle East. Market forces are at work here which will not bend to PAL’s will.

A restrictive employment covenant in their employment contracts may prevent some of these aviators and other skilled workers from transferring to competitors abroad. This is a common enough clause in contracts for so-called “mission critical” workers, or those who are considered integral to an industry’s sustainability. But this will not solve the problem. PAL cannot seek judicial enforcement of every agreement that may be breached by its pilots. And under settled cases, the employer has the burden of proving that the restriction is valid and reasonable and does not impose an “undue burden” on the employee. It can be convincingly argued that working in the Philippines constitutes an undue burden.

Sadly, this goes beyond mere inconvenience and embarrassment. It’s a major setback for the air travel and tourism industries. And it actually places the flying public in grave danger as PAL and other airlines might be tempted to allow underqualified or raw pilots to handle its planes.

This trend has grave implications, not the least of which is its effect on domestic air travel safety. With our best pilots and flight engineers gone, can the airlines ensure that the riding public is given a safe ride ? We foresee turbulence ahead for the airline industry.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Justice Mariano Del Castillo is being accused of plagiarism in not properly citing the scholarly authorities used in the decision in Viduya vs. Executive Secretary, which he penned. An ethics committee has been formed to investigate the matter, chaired by Chief Justice Renato Corona, with Justice Teresita de Castro as the working chair and Justices Roberto Abad, Jose Perez, and Jose Mendoza as members.

But did he actually copy the words of an article written by Mark Ellis, executive director of the International Bar Association, and passed them off as his own ? Mr. Ellis’ article, entitled “Breaking the Silence on Rape as an International Crime”, was published in the Case Western Reserve Journal of International Law and makes the case for considering rape as a crime against humanity, like piracy, genocide and other heinous offenses, and therefore “ subject to universal jurisdictions under customary international law”.

The Viduya ruling, in disposing of the claims of Filipino victims of Japan’s wartime policy of forcing women to work as sex slaves serving Japanese soldiers, held that the Philippines is under no obligation to assist in pursuing the comfort women’s claims. It essentially becomes a diplomatic issue. According to the Court, since “ The Executive Department has determined that taking up petitioners’ cause would be inimical to our country’s foreign policy interests, and could disrupt our relations with Japan thereby creating serious implications for stability in this region”, the Court cannot compel the government to take up the cudgels for the victims. The petition was accordingly dismissed.

Although it may appear from a quick and superficial reading of the Ellis article and the Viduya ruling that they espouse differing views on how rape should be treated under international law, they are actually on the same page. Both seem to “ fully agree that rape, sexual slavery, torture, and sexual violence are morally reprehensible as well as legally prohibited under contemporary international law”. But it was precisely in explaining the immediately preceding quote that Justice Del Castillo might have sailed into intellectually dishonest waters.

In the decision’s footnote (no. 65) to the quoted sentence, Mr. Ellis noticed uncanny similarities with the words and structure of his article and was understandably concerned. Here he was, presenting his best arguments for rape to be considered as a crime against the whole world, and it was being used in a judicial decision which says that this just isn’t yet so. Both are correct, from each one’s perspective, but it was unfair for Mr. Ellis’ that his ideas would be so utilized. Not only was there no proper acknowledgment or attribution, his words were used to bolster a position which he was opposing. A bit like being “fried in your own lard”, to use a popular Filipino saying.

What is plagiarism ? A good working definition is provided by uslegal.com, as follows:

Intentional or unintentional use of another’s words or ideas without acknowledging this use constitutes plagiarism: There are four common forms of plagiarism:

• The duplication of an author’s words without quotation marks and accurate references or footnotes.
• The duplication of author’s words or phrases with footnotes or accurate references, but without quotation marks.
• The use of an author’s ideas in paraphrase without accurate references or footnotes.
• Submitting a paper in which exact words are merely rearranged even though footnoted.

But did Mr. Justice Del Castillo really lift words and phrases from Ellis’ work and pass them off as his own ? From where I sit, it looks like he did. It’s doesn’t jump out at you and one had best read the Ellis article and the Vinuya decision in full before deciding, but it seems Mr. Ellis has a point. Apart from verbatim phrases lifted from the article, the flow of Mr. Ellis’ ideas, or at least a significant part of them, appears to have been duplicated in the Vinuya decision.

We may grant that, as Justice Del Castillo said in his defense, there was no malicious intent in his inclusion of Mr. Ellis’ work and that these were mere “appendages” which would not have affected the final outcome even if they were removed. But the fact remains that he may have copied Ellis’ words without attribution and this is more than sufficiently damning. It all comes down to a question of integrity. If the Supreme Court can be dishonest in seemingly minor things, how can we expect it to be truthful and forthright on the bigger issues ?

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Photo by Anton Sheker of Blogwatch.ph

It was a good start, as these things go. The air was festive at the site of the presidential inaugural ceremonies, in the sense that it felt like a campaign rally for Noynoy Aquino. The predominance of yellow was expected although still a bit grating to those of us who were not enamoured of the President to begin with.

The entertainment segment preceding the formal oath-taking was entertaining, although some elements were a bit off. Juana Change as mistress of ceremonies, removed from the context of anti-government rallies, looked lost, fat and freakish. The songs were rehashes of campaign ditties with a few revisions to make them more “inclusive”. There was an earnest attempt to give life to a theme of reconciliation but it was still sounded and felt like a victory party for President Noynoy. Fair enough. He won and is now the Head of State.

P-Noy looked embarrassed at times at the outpouring of love and acclamation. Jojo Binay looked alternately bored and annoyed, slumped next to his boss, but came to life when it was his turn to take the oath of office. The foreign dignitaries looked bemused and bewildered at all the hoopla. Erap Estrada looked pensive, maybe looking back at the many lost opportunities. Kris Aquino appeared troubled but the rest of the Aquino sisters were glowingly beautiful. Chief Justice Renato Corona was putting a good face to an awkward situation.

Or so it seemed to me watching things unfold on T.V. The personalities and speculating on what they might have been feeling was far more interesting than the actual event itself. It is a historical watershed, for all that, and was all it was touted to be: part celebration, part pep rally, part traditional commemoration of yet another shift in the Philippine political galaxy, the first peaceful transition from one administration to another in 12 years.

But as for lasting change ? We shall see.

There was nothing at all earthshaking about his inaugural speech. The same issues which served him well during the campaign were trotted out: the fight against corruption, the need for employment generation, creating a healthy investment climate, adequate health services and the like. He reserved his fighting words for his predecessor and promised that those who thrived under her crooked reign would face the bar of justice. He shrewdly relied on his folksy, populist approach, more reminiscent of Erap than Cory, promising not to tolerate abuses of power but forgetting to mention that “walang kama-kamaganak”.

It certainly creates great expectations from the citizenry, even among us who did not vote for President Aquino. Expectations which, if not managed well, could spell trouble for him down the road. But he knows this, and has brought the Filipino people into the equation, as shown by the repetitive rituals of oath-taking during the ceremony involving the crowd. Just to bring home the point that good governance is everyone’s responsibility.

He sometimes tripped on his words and seemed short of breath, with his smoker’s cough threatening to make an appearance at one point. But all went well in the end.

A few points I can think of why I’m optimistic about a Noynoy presidency.

First, there’s no doubt that he was popularly elected. He can draw on the goodwill and euphoria generated by his having been swept into office in such a fairy-tale fashion. People will cut him some slack, beyond the so-called 100 days honeymoon period. He has the opportunity and luxury of making hard, even unpopular, decisions during his first months in office, maybe until the end of the year. He can make full use of it.

And he has shown some political astuteness in choosing some good people for his cabinet and not limiting his candidates to those who openly supported him and he feels comfortable with. Like Linda Baldoz as Labor Secretary.

Also, he can slap down people if need be, quietly but firmly. He handled Jojo Binay and Gen. Delfin Bangit quite well when they tried to bully him. He put them in their proper place, which is outside what they presumptuously believe is their vested sphere of influence.

As Colin Powell said, being in charge means pissing some people off. Noynoy can show them who’s in charge, if he wants to.

It was raining hard this morning but now the sun’s out. A good sign.

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

If anyone seems to be having the most fun out of campaigning for the presidency, it looks to me like Dick Gordon.

Just check out his video with the comedy duo Moymoy Palaboy which has gone viral. This is not the demeanor of a man lagging far behind in the polls. He looks and sounds like a winner.

The irrepressible Gordon is nothing if not audacious. After failing to keep the U.S. bases in his bailiwick of Olongapo City (God stepped in anyway with the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo to ensure that the Americans well and truly left), he turned what could have been a calamitous situation into a golden opportunity. Pushing for the establishment of the Subic Bay Metropolitan Authority, he converted the former U.S. naval base into a thriving freeport, creating more jobs and revenue than when the U.S. military was there.

As Secretary of Tourism, he once again showed his marketing savvy (he was at one time a brand marketing exec for P & G), boosting foreign and local tourism after years in the doldrums. He was also the high profile head of the Philippine National Red Cross, making his presence felt at every natural or man-made disaster even while serving in the Senate.

All is not sweetness and light in Gordon country, however. Long-time anti-U.S. bases activist, child-welfare advocate and Gordon critic, Catholic priest Fr. Shay Cullen, paints a dark picture of a Godfather-like warlord who will not hesitate to use extreme measures to silence his critics and get his way. But this image did not gain wide acceptance in the public mind.

His Senate stint, as one among twenty-four other gigantic egos, must have convinced Dick Gordon, a man of action (with a mouth to match), that he had to move to a bigger stage.

His running mate, Bayani Fernando, is no slouch in the accomplishment and chutzpah department either. A self-made billionaire, he made the once-backward Marikina City the best example of how a progressive and well-administered urban center should be. Although he doesn’t seem to be having as much fun as his partner, burdened perhaps by worries about the recovery of Marikina, one of the areas hardest hit by Typhoon Ondoy, and challenges to his family’s political hegemony in the city be built up.

But going by his track record alone, Dick Gordon should be the most qualified to be the next Philippine president. Alas, the surveys say otherwise.

Gordon is unfazed. “You want to go for the winner just because his ratings are higher? Even if he’s the wrong [choice]? Go ahead.” Gordon has been quoted as saying. Freed from worry and pressure by being a tailender, his credibility and reputation intact and rising, Dick can plunge wholeheartedly and fearlessly into the fray.

And who knows ? Mr. Gordon has faced long odds before and emerged triumphant. There are enough voters, myself included, who are waffling between this candidate and that and who might just be swayed on election day by the memory of Dick dancing to “The Lion Sleeps Tonight”. Or the endorsement of Butch Dalisay, parts of which I reproduce below (without permission, but I’m sure my tocayo won’t mind):

“I’ve never done this before, but I’m going out on a limb to make an endorsement. And I’m going to do that because the stakes are just too high, the situation too dire, for someone in my position—who might yet persuade the uninformed or the uncertain—to sit idly by as the most important presidential election of the post-Marcos era takes place.
Having gone through martial law, two EDSAs, and the interminably long night of GMA’s hold on power (something she might yet extend with her run for Congress, and presumably the Speakership and Prime Ministership, if the chips fall her way again), I’m convinced that we Pinoys have punished ourselves enough with bad and corrupt leadership. If we elect another lemon to the Palace again, we’ll have no one to blame but ourselves.

My vote will go to that person who I think has the experience, the integrity, the intelligence, the vision, the compassion and the discipline to best serve as our next president. After reviewing the options, I conclude that that person can only be Sen. Richard ‘Dick’ Gordon. He’s running along with former Marikina mayor and Metro Manila chief Bayani ‘BF’ Fernando — whose teaming up with Gordon was something of a masterstroke, focusing attention on the reputations of both men as proven, no-nonsense performers (or, the way Gordon puts it “transformers” — people who change society).

One just has to look at what Gordon has done in Subic and Olongapo, and what Fernando did to Marikina, to see how they have delivered on their word. Both places provide working demonstrations of what inspired leadership and political will can achieve.

True, both men have big egos, and can come across to Filipinos accustomed to being wooed and massaged as being brusque or even abrasive when they need to get things done. But that’s nothing compared to the smiling impunity with which GMA and her crew weakened, rather than strengthened, our people’s faith in government.

In a country plagued by disasters of every kind, Dick’s 40 years of hands-on experience with the Red Cross should be invaluable. At a time when Philippine-American relations need to be managed with both firmness and finesse, Gordon trumps all his fellow aspirants in experience in dealing with the Americans, knowing when to stand up to them and when to seek their cooperation.

xxx Can Dick Gordon win? The surveys don’t look too good at the moment, but it’s up to us to decide whether to let the surveys — or we ourselves — choose our best next President.”

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

Do you trust Manny Villar (to be the next president of the Philippines) ?

The answer to this question is the stumbling block of the Villar campaign and must keep the candidate awake most nights. That many Filipinos are undecided, at best, about how they would reply if asked is why Villar trails at the polls, albeit closely nipping at the heels of Noynoy.

He certainly has a reputation for being an astute, even ruthless, businessman. This is partly because an instinctive mistrust of the very wealthy. He could not have gotten his fortune without having done something bad, the thinking goes. But this only accounts for a small percentage of his detractors.

The main reason is that he has more than a few skeletons rattling in his closet, the scariest being the C-5 scandal. Thus, despite all the money and effort poured into his run he has to play catch-up in the homestretch. And why the smear campaign about his being “Villaroyo” has taken its toll.

But Villar also has a lot of things going for him, which is why he has a good chance of defeating Noynoy Aquino and his fearsome yellow army. And I don’t mean just his money. At a certain point in the election (and I believe this point has been reached), money becomes less important. All the money in the world will not get you elected if you’re truly unelectable. Cash becomes critical as election day nears only as a means of ensuring the party machinery is kept well greased and to keep your capos and foot soldiers happy and motivated on the day itself. You will need warm bodies and money to safeguard your vote. On this score I believe Noynoy and Villar have achieved a rough parity.

What Villar has going for him are three things.

First, he has a compelling story: the poor boy who pulls himself up by his (rubber) sandal straps and attains material success beyond the wildest dreams of most Filipinos. Even considering the propaganda, hype and bullshit inherent in electioneering, his storyline resonates on a basic level with a lot of voters. His overcoming the limitations imposed by unfortunate circumstances can be duplicated, he says, in small and big ways if only one has diligence, resilience and faith in the Almighty. In truth, he has gone a longer way and by his own dogged efforts than any of the presidential aspirants. Even if we consider the allegation that he was not really as poor as his campaign claims he was.

Secondly, he has proven administrative capabilities and leadership qualities. This is immediately apparent in the way his campaign has been run: professionally and effectively. That he had money helped, of course. But he used it well.

And to be fair, one can see that it is not just money animating the Villar campaign. There is as much intelligence and commitment there. He got his message out early. The dispatches from the Villar camp were concise and easy to grasp, unified by a clear and believable theme. He built alliances which, although they raised a lot of eyebrows at the start, appear to be holding up. To me, this indicates excellent executive abilities which are indispensable if one is to run a country as fractious as others.

Finally, he appears to be person with genuine integrity that has earned the grudging respect of many who initially mistrusted him. He can say his piece calmly and without rancor. His demeanor has not changed despite the mud flung at him from all sides. And he has refused to repay in kind.

One can also see the kind of person he is by how he interacts with his family, his wife and children.

Of course, personal decency alone does not a good president make. But coupled with his other qualities, a convincing argument for a Villar presidency can be made.

The fear of him turning out to be Villaroyo will linger. He will have a lot of trust-building to do if he ever gets to Malacanang. And the cynic in me recognizes the possibility he might indeed transform into the Frankenstein monster he is held out to be by his enemies. But for now, I really don’t see it happening.

A point on a matter which I consider a non-issue, with all due respect to my esteemed Economics professor, Dr. Winnie Monsod. Much has been said about his having used the story of his late brother, who died in early childhood, in his ads. Whatever else can be said about the embellishments and dramatic touches given his brother’s dying, it points to a fundamental and undeniable truth: that for a majority of our countrymen death is a constant possibility for want of adequate medical care.

And as for the questionable tack of using a dead person to further one’s aims, Noynoy is guilty of this as well. Even more so, as he has been using the memory of two dead people to drive his campaign, Ninoy and Cory, tragically felled by an assassin’s bullet and cancer, respectively. Only this time, Aquino wants us to believe that by reason his parents’ untimely deaths, destiny has conferred upon him the mantle of leadership.

Which is the more insidious and shameless untruth ?

———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?

More than six months ago I wrote a post on how Noynoy Aquino lacks substance. Nothing that has happened since has changed my view. If anything, I feel stronger than ever that he is just not the right person to lead this country for the next six years.

Though I have to admit is it’s not hard to like the guy. He’s a decent and well-mannered fellow. Noynoy’s like a buddy from high school who you may not have seen for a number of years but you instantly feel at ease with if you unexpectedly bump into each other. The kind of guy you want to have coffee with or knock down a few beers while watching the latest Pacquiao fight.

But as the next Philippine president ? The prospect makes me very uneasy. Considering his undistinguished public life, no one can deny that he has gotten to where he is solely because he is Ninoy and Cory’s only son. The presumption being that since his parents were historical giants, their progeny will prove to be noble and outstanding as well. History has proven that this is not necessarily so, Gloria Arroyo being the most obvious example. As is Noynoy’s sister, Kris.

Believing in Noynoy on the basis of his parentage is essentially putting yourself in the hands of two dead people. Not a wise basis for decision-making.

What worries me more is that one doesn’t know where he stands on a number of critical issues and, I strongly suspect, neither does he. His platform is full of pap and trendy management buzzwords, leaving me to suspect it was drafted by a cabal of MBA geeks. What part of it can really be attributed to him ? What original ideas has he articulated ?

More to the point, has he honestly lived by the high ideals he espouses ? A cursory examination of the Hacienda Luisita situation provides a ready answer to this.

One doesn’t become a transformational leader just because he says he is, any more than a frog becomes a prince by croaking about it. Even the rabidly pro-Noynoy columnist, Conrad de Quiros, in expounding on transformational leadership, could not bring himself to say that Noynoy fits the bill.

And he can be petulant, whining about the “biased treatment” he receives from the media, as if he expects and deserves nothing but accolades. This is merely unseemly and annoying now, but is a disturbing indicator of possible intolerance and vindictiveness if and when he ascends the highest corridors of power.

The common fear is that Noynoy, because of his perceived intellectual and other character deficiencies, will be easily manipulated by the people around him, who may not necessarily be as upright as he.

Major Tom commented in my earlier entry of our “sense of desperation in our search for a moral and sensible leadership”. Now is a time when people are desperate and need to cling to a hope (De Quiros’ words). Sadly, this desperation has led many to embrace change for the sake of change, as exemplified by Noynoy. Aquino’s camp has taken advantage of this, projecting him as The Anti-GMA, and simplistically (and cynically) claiming that not being corrupt is by itself enough to qualify him for the presidency. But this half-assed approach to change will likely fail to bring long-lasting and positive renewal. It will ultimately bring us back to where we started, as shown by our experience since EDSA I. We went full circle from Marcos to Arroyo in a scant 15 years.

Meaningful change is deliberate and goal-oriented. It is driven by a clear vision of how things should and could be, not by wishful thinking and euphoria bordering on hysteria. It is guided by humility and a knowledge of one’s limitations but also a courage and steadfastness to transcend such limits. I honestly don’t see this in Noynoy.

I end on a personal note. I have been surprised by the undercurrent of nastiness in the Noynoy campaign. The level of venom aimed at those who refuse to be drawn into the cult of Noynoy is disturbing. I have been patronized and sneered at for not expressing unbridled love for Noynoy, even by people who I thought to be my friends. Among those in the Noynoy camp, I have seen various cliques and factions openly express scorn for and actively undermine each other (for example between the “political operators” and those from civil society groups, each accusing the other of incompetence and hidden agendas). These are not the kind of people we want running the country.
———

Have you read my other popular articles like Libel on the Internet under Philippine Laws (Part 1), Libel on the Internet under Philippine Law (Part 2) or on Freedom of Expression?