What Some People Fight For

Cinderella Man

It is 1934, and in the locker room of New York's Madison Square Garden-- just minutes before his first bout in ages-- boxer James Braddock's stomach is turning.

Braddock isn't nervous. The rumbling of his stomach is not so much the result of frayed nerves, as it is the product of a day gone by without a bite to eat.

A victim of America's Great Depression, Braddock is-- literally-- a hungry fighter.

What follows next is one of the poignant-- if somewhat amusing-- scenes from Russel Crowe's latest movie, Cinderella Man (CM). After learning that his fighter is about to enter the ring on an empty stomach, manager Joe Gould (Paul Giamatti) quickly produces a bowl of beef hash that Braddock (Crowe) is unable to eat (both of Braddock's hands are taped and Gould forgot to get his ward any utensils). Unable to wait, Braddock buries his face in the bowl, and eats out of it-- an image that sums up the desperation of a man who must beg to pay his utility bills (another heart-tugging scene in the movie), and fight for a paltry sum, albeit years of not having trained.

There are feel-good movies, and there are outstanding feel-good movies. No split decision here. CM is one of the latter, a movie that combines a talented cast (Crowe and Giamatti are joined by Renée Zelweger, who plays Mae Braddock, James' wife) and good storytelling to produce a movie that is as entertaining as it is inspirational.

To compliment CM at this point would be redundant-- there a million reviews out there, all praising the movie. Which is ironic (but not surprising), since the movie hasn't done so well at the box office.

Fighting For What?

I'm sure many who've watched the movie can draw parallelisms between James Braddock and our hero-of-the-moment, Manny Pacquiao. Braddock gave the American people hope at a time devoid of it. Pacquiao gives us good news at a time there's a dearth of it.

Both are considered heroes for doing something they did primarily for themselves and their families. Let's not romanticize that aspect of their being prizefighters. One of the scenes in CM has a reporter asking Braddock something like, "why do you fight?" Braddock simply replies, "milk."

Pacquiao gets into the ring for far more than that, but it's basically the same thing. Boxing is the best way-- perhaps the only way-- he can put food on his family's table. That he carries the Philippine flag into the ring and manages to restore our pride in being Filipino-- these are bonuses.

I like that Pacquiao has given Filipinos something to smile about. I've just about had it with newspapers and news broadcasts-- all I see is bad news. You'd think that after the Gloria-Garci debacle, things couldn't get worse, but they have. Pacquiao's exploits give us something to cheer about. And for that, we should be grateful.

I don't see the point of debating on whether Pacquiao's a hero or not. We all have different standards, and I'm not about to impose mine on everyone else. (By my standards, anyone who leaves his or her family to earn dollars abroad is a hero. OFWs have helped keep our economy afloat, and without them our economy would be a hell of a lot worse off than it already is.) Many consider him one, and I won't dispute that. We Filipinos love our fighters, win or lose, because when they're out there slugging it out for their paychecks, we like to think they're out there fighting for us. Pacquiao has endeared himself to Filipinos, because unlike our so-called leaders-- who are too busy fighting each other-- the Pacman fights for his family, the flag, and for us.

If only our leaders would do the same.

My Inbox is Empty

Originally posted on jedeva.multiply.com on July 13, 2005

As I write this, thousands of people have gathered in Makati for (according to the opposition) the "mother of all rallies."

I watched footage of the rally this afternoon. It looked impressive-- I haven't seen a rally that large in the heart of Makati in quite a while. Still, just from looking at the rally I could tell the numbers there still pale in comparison with those of EDSA II in 2001, and EDSA I in 1986. This despite the fact that this mobilization was organized by the parties that comprise the United Opposition, the Left, and a number of organizations that have joined the call for President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo's resignation.

Why?

My cell phone may offer an explanation.

Since the opposition announced that they would hold a rally today, I've been waiting for a text message-- one exhorting me to go to Makati to help my country rid itself of the person who supposedly stole the presidency and is responsible for the rut our nation is in: GMA.

I'm still waiting for that text message.

In 2001, it was a different story. Text messages from all sorts of people-- my relatives, friends, brods, former comrades in the movement-- flooded my phone's inbox, all of them urging me to drag my ass to the EDSA Shrine so we could all tell Erap to drag his ass out of Malacañang.

I did that, went to the EDSA Shrine, and texted other people to do so. I did this, even though at that time I worked for the Central East Asia Growth Circle Program, an office under the Office of the President. I knew I would probably lose my job if Erap resigned, but I didn't care. A wrong was done, and at that time I felt the only thing that could right that wrong would be for me to do my share to convince Erap to step down.

But I digress.

My point is that I haven't gotten any text messages. Neither have my officemates. Neither have most of the people I know. The spontaneity that sparked EDSA II is absent in this crusade to oust GMA. Despite being in the heart of the Makati Central Business District and in the midst of thousands of workers, today's rally has-- as of this writing-- failed to draw the crowds similar to that of EDSA II.

Alex Magno, a political science professor from UP Diliman, doubts that GMA will be removed (or moved) by people power-like mobilizations calling for her resignation.

Will another people power uprising in the Philippines topple beleaguered President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo? No. The political configuration just isn't right. There is anger but no infectious outrage. There is serious disappointment but no viable alternative leader. There is a lot of political heat but not enough to bring things to a boil. (Emphasis mine. Read the full article in Time Asia Magazine online.)

Many will probably attribute the dismal numbers of today's rally to people power fatigue. I think I may have a better explanation.

Erap was impeached, and many followed his trial intently, wondering if it would be possible for the law to catch someone supposedly beyond its reach. Many-- myself included-- already felt he was guilty, and the trial provided an opportunity to confirm what many of us already suspected: that Erap was a corrupt leader undeserving of his office. When the administration-controlled senate voted to seal an envelope that may have helped build the case against Erap, people were outraged because they saw a cover-up of epic proportions. So a response of epic proportions was what Erap got.

That isn't happening here. A lot of people believe GMA probably cheated in the last election, but there hasn't been an opportunity to confirm these suspicions, aside from the Gloriagate tapes. At this point, her impeachment-- or an independent, exhaustive inquiry into the facts of the case-- would be a more effective means to unseat GMA (that is, if the facts show that she is guilty of the crimes she allegedly committed). If the facts prove her guilt but she isn't impeached, I think you'll see a hell of a lot more people (myself included) troop to Makati.

Yes, a lot of competent people resigned from the cabinet last Friday. Yes, the Gloriagate tapes are suspicious. Yes, 4 out of 5 Filipinos (out of 300 individuals surveyed) believe GMA cheated in the 2004 elections. But these facts don't prove GMA's guilt. As Solita Monsod says in her column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, Get Real, "Erap was treated better than this-- he was at least impeached so he had the chance to defend himself."

Find the facts that prove GMA's guilt, try her, then impeach her. If that doesn't work, then let the text messages fly.

Nang Dahil sa Chismis (Because of Gossip)

Orignally posted on http://jedeva.multiply.com on July 11, 2005

I read somewhere that former Finance Secretary Cesar Purisima suspected that Malacañang had a hand in the Supreme Court's decision to issue a temporary restraining order on the implementation on the Expanded Value-Added Tax (E-VAT). Senator Franklin Drilon also said something to this effect the other day, adding that his decision to call for GMA's resignation (a week or so after he expressed his support for GMA in a rally in Iloilo) was prompted by GMA's alleged involvement in the issuance of the TRO.

It's funny what people will say to justify their actions, especially when they want to hide the ugly truth.

Let's tackle the problems with their conspiracy theory.

First of all, why would GMA want a TRO on the E-VAT after doing cartwheels to get the damn thing passed?

The conspiracy theorists claim that GMA wanted to delay the implementation of the E-VAT as its implementation might piss off a public already disenchanted with her administration, what with the jueteng and Gloriagate scandals that have rocked her administration.

That doesn't make sense. The passage of the E-VAT was one of the few things GMA could rely on to keep her in the good graces of Big Business, foreign investors, and the international community. With the passage of the E-VAT, the president had a ready answer for those that criticized her administration: yes, we have problems, but that's all because of politics-- insofar as the economy is concerned, my administration has addressed its immediate concerns; we have made progress in cutting our fiscal deficit, and with the passage of the E-VAT and improved tax collection, we now have additional sources of revenue.

The E-VAT was, from the administration's standpoint, one of its few bright spots. Why they would do anything to delay its implementation is beyond me.

Ah, but the conspiracy theorists argue that the president wanted to avoid anything that would make her more unpopular, something that would have happened with the price increases (e.g., gasoline) that would have followed the implementation of the E-VAT. Ergo, she must have had a hand in the TRO.

That's crazy.

The president's already taken a lot of flak for aggressively lobbying for the passage of the E-VAT. Anybody who hates her for supporting the E-VAT won't hate her any less if it's delayed.

In short, the president wouldn't have gained much from delaying the implementation of the E-VAT. The issuance of the TRO was as damaging as any scandal-- another example of the administration's failure to get its act together. It's highly unlikely the administration would have viewed it any other way.

Politicians are expected to say anything to protect their reputations. But they should draw the line at dragging down the reputations of other people to protect their own. Drilon has no business questioning the integrity of the members of the Supreme Court, especially since the basis for his statements and actions was a mere rumor. I mean, who in his right mind would question the character of thirteen men and women with excellent track records in government on the basis of chismis (gossip)?

Well, they do say that ambition can blind a man. Looks like it can dull one's brain as well.

The Different Colors of Dissent, Part 2

Originally posted on http://jedeva.multiply.com on July 11, 2005.

Last Friday was supposed to be, according to some quarters, the last day of the Arroyo presidency.

After several members of her cabinet, composed primarily of her economic team, resigned and publicly called on GMA to step down, Sen. Franklin Drilon held his own press conference to announce that the Liberal Party (LP) had decided to urge the president to resign. A few hours later, former President Cory Aquino went on air to announce that she, too, would support calls for GMA's resignation. The Makati Business Club (MBC) and Financial Executives of the Philippines, Incorporated (FINEX) also called on GMA to step down. That afternoon, a mass of people converged at the Ninoy Aquino monument, where opposition leaders led by Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay led chants of "GMA BABA" (GMA step down).

It seemed that GMA's end was near.

What more could she say? What more could she do?

It turns out, it it wasn't so much what she said that day-- or what she did-- that turned the tide.

Several things worked in her favor last Friday.

First, former President Fidel V. Ramos reiterated his support for the beleaguered president. Bolstered by their Chairman Emeritus' show of support, the rest of LAKAS fell in line, assuring the president of at least one large, united political base steadfastly behind her. FVR's statement neutralized Cory's, and LAKAS' united front stood in stark contrast to the Liberal Party's. (After Drilon announced that the LP was joining calls for GMA's resignation, other elements in the LP came out to question his statements. LP Party Chairman and Manila Mayor Lito Atienza-- a staunch supporter of GMA, and a party stalwart-- immediately denied that the LP's members had come up with a consolidated position regarding the matter.)

Second, other business groups-- particularly the Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry and the Employers' Confederation of the Philippines-- released statements contrary to that of the MBC and FINEX.

Third, the Catholic Bishops Congress of the Philippines (CBCP) failed to come up with a consolidated position on GMA. (The CBCP came out with a position yesterday, and-- to the dismay of the opposition-- rejected calls for GMA's resignation.) The opposition was counting on the CBCP to help gather more support from the predominantly Catholic middle-class which was instrumental in toppling former President Joseph Estrada four years before.

The conflicting positions of politicians and big business, plus the silence of the Church, did nothing to encourage people to take a stand on the issue of GMA's resignation. In the same vein, the military-- which had already issued a statement reiterating their neutrality in the ongoing conflict-- was given little reason to believe that GMA had lost all authority to govern.

Thank God it's Friday

Another factor working in GMA's favor was that all of the maneuvers being engineered to remove her from Malacañang were done on the last day of the working week-- Friday. Had the opposition succeeded in gathering enough popular support that day, the Administration would have been caught trying to mobilize a response during the weekend, a two-day lull that would have hampered any attempt to organize their forces.

The gamble didn't pay off. Instead of working for the opposition, the weekend has benefited GMA.

It allowed people to re-evaluate the events of the preceding day. Opinion makers and analysts were therefore given a two-day window with which to share their views on the cabinet resignations, the LP's apparent defection, and Cory's statement. It provided an opportunity for the public to look deeper into the motivations of the individuals who had withdrawn their support the previous day.

It allowed passions to cool, and subsequently, for reason to take over.

In the end, it was politics as usual, and it left a bitter taste in the mouths of those who had expected heroes, not heels; principled positions, not political trade-offs; statesmen, not opportunists.

Today, GMA is still president. She still hasn't regained the trust of a people tired of the political muckraking that has dragged down the peso, and the economy down with it. Now, however, she is not alone. Today she is joined by those who seek to oust her, who-- like her-- have lost their credibility.

The Different Colors of Dissent

Originally posted on http://jedeva.multiply.com on July 6, 2005

The calls for GMA's resignation have grown louder over the past week. In the wake of these, three respected institutions-- The UP College of Law, De La Salle University, and Ateneo Law-- have released their own positions on the Gloriagate controversy

This morning, the cabinet's most respected members resigned-- just as the president asked last night. But before leaving, former secretaries Dinky Soliman (DSWD), Cesar Purisima (DTI), Willie Parayno (BIR), Emilia Boncodin (DBM), Florencio Abad (DepEd)-- and a few others-- called on the president to step down.

Maroon, green, and blue

After taking a vote, the Faculty of the UP College of Law came out with a statement that says that the president's "calls to Commissioner Garcillano implies more than a mere 'lapse of judgment' or simple impropriety. We believe that it constitutes an inexplicable and inexcusable failure to adhere to fundamental precepts of the Constitution."

Among the laws that the President swore to preserve, defend, and faithfully execute is Article IX, Section 1 of the Constitution, which guarantees the independence of the COMELEC.

Thus, according to the faculty of UP Law, "President Arroyo has lost the capacity to serve the public trust with the utmost responsibility and integrity. She has become morally, and constitutionally, unfit to be President." Therefore, they call for GMA's resignation, "the best apology she can offer the Filipino people."

DLSU's statement, entitled "Restoring Faith in Democracy," says "We firmly believe that moral ascendancy is a critical ingredient in effective governance, and that even if GMA "stays in Office for the next five years, she will be unable to realistically command the respect of the nation."

The La Salle brothers make it clear, however, that they "reject all other extra-constitutional solutions to this present crisis." They want changes in leadership to remain within the framework of the constitution, meaning GMA has to be replaced by her Vice-President, Noli De Castro.

The Ateneo Law statement doesn't echo UP's and La Salle's call for GMA to resign. Instead, they ask her "as the duly proclaimed Chief Executive of our Republic, to determine what is best for the country, and that her decision be made with the best interest of the nation in mind."

As our President, we must rely on Mrs. Arroyo to make the proper decision, and once having made it, to then follow what would be in accordance with the terms provided for in our Constitution.

If the President would so decide in the best interest of the country to resign, then our people and our political leaders should rally behind the succession of our proclaimed Vice-President to the highest office of the land.

The three statements share one thing in common: all recognize the fact that the president faces a crisis, and all are in agreement that how she responds will determine the fate of our nation in the months, maybe years, to come.

All appeal to GMA to do what's in the country's best interests. UP Law and La Salle are unequivocal in what they think this is: she should step down. Ateneo Law, on the other hand, has chosen to trust the president's judgment in this matter.

All the president's men

The resignation of GMA's cabinet didn't come as a surprise. Last night, the president asked them to tender their courtesy resignations to " give the executive a free hand to reorganize itself." What did come as a surprise was their call for GMA to follow them as they proudly join the ranks of the unemployed.

Their parting words are a crushing blow to the president's efforts to salvage her presidency.

First, the country's most respected institutions tell her to step down. Next, the most respected members of her cabinet say the same thing. Her own people, for crying out loud.

Ano pa ang masasabi niya? (What else can she say?) More importantly, what more can she do?

Let Law Rule

undWe are a people fond of cutting corners. We have a low regard for things such as due process, and a disdain for the rule of law.

For many Filipinos, everything is justifiable for expediency's sake. That's why traffic lights are ignored at twelve midnight. Why wait for it to turn green, when there aren't any other cars in sight?

When our leaders foul up, the instinct of many is to unseat them through means not found in our Constitution. Why wait till the next election, when the public is willing to help you legitimize your coup?

We forget, however, that laws are there for a reason. We forget that disregarding our laws has dangerous consequences. For those who ignore the red light in the dead of the night, it is the car crash resulting from that speeding car that came out of nowhere. For those that succeed in unseating a president through extralegal means, it is the weakening of the institutions that are the foundations of a stable democracy.

President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's apology has been followed by calls for her resignation. Some politicians have called for a snap election. The Left has proposed the establishment of a provisional revolutionary government to replace the current administration.

These proposals demand that GMA be replaced posthaste. All reject the principle of succession as enshrined in our Constitution:

In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of the President, the Vice-President shall become the President to serve the unexpired term. In case of death, permanent disability, removal from office, or resignation of both the President and Vice-President, the President of the Senate or, in case of his inability, the Speaker of the House of Representatives, shall then act as President until the President or Vice-President shall have been elected and qualified. (Sec. 8, Art. VII of the 1987 Philippine Constitution)

I can understand why many find the idea of the presidency being handed to Vice President Noli De Castro, Senate President Franklin Drilon, or Speaker Jose De Venecia repugnant. For the opposition, five years is too long a wait for the next election. The Left, on the other hand, sees an opportunity to do in one year what they've attempted to do for the past few decades-- stage a revolution that will replace a system they believe is controlled by the elite. As for the common tao the street-- well, they consider all the alternatives to GMA unappealing.

They want GMA to go, fine. Go ahead, pressure her into resigning, or impeach her. But proposing solutions beyond those prescribed by our laws is foolish and unwise.

We just can't bend or break our laws whenever it suits us. So Noli De Castro isn't exactly the kind of person we want running our country. But hey, we made him Vice President. Now we don't want him to do the job we gave him in the first place? Tough. Next time, vote and campaign hard for the candidate you believe in, so people like De Castro don't end up in government.

Right now the strict adherence to our laws-- and respect for our institutions-- is far safer than allowing ourselves to be swept along by our passionate need for overnight reforms. The rule of law and the strength of our institutions will allow us to weather crises in leadership whenever they occur. It will discourage military adventurism, power grabs, and anarchy in the streets.

Our Constitution isn't perfect. But a clear set of ground rules is better than none. Calling for a snap election, something not found in our Constitution, or starting from scratch with the set-up of a "provisional revolutionary government" is tantamount to allowing the proponents of these ideas to make the rules as they go along. The danger with doing this is that it provides those who make the rules opportunities to cheat whenever they want.

Tama na (enough). Letting GMA remain in power or paving the way for a Noli De Castro presidency may make our stomachs turn, but in the long run it will benefit us and will help strengthen what is an already fragile democracy.

Do the Math

In a country where job security is a rarity, there's at least one person who has little to worry about.

Graphic made using Adobe Photoshop CS. Numbers based on an article by former Supreme Court Justice Isagani Cruz, Removal Through Impeachment, which appeared in the Philippine Daily Inquirer.

To view a larger version of the image, click here.

Hotel Rwanda

History has shown us that there are no limits to the cruelty of men.

Should we forget, movies like Hotel Rwanda come along to remind us that even in the information age, large-scale crimes like genocide still occur, and they do so while the world's so-called superpowers watch and quibble about the need to intervene.

The movie is set in the African nation of Rwanda, where between the months of April and June 1994, almost a million Rwandans were killed in the space of a hundred days. A country populated by two major ethnic groups-- the Hutus and the Tutsis-- the slaughter was perpetrated by Hutus in response to the assassination of Rwandan president Juvenal Habyarimana (a Hutu) whose plane was shot down in April 1994. The Hutus-- led by the militia group Interahamwe-- retaliated by killing Tutsis, whom they blamed for Habyarimana's death. In the slaughter that ensued, no one was spared-- men, women, and children were cut down using machetes just for being Tutsi.

Caught in the middle is Paul Rusesabagina (ably played by Don Cheadle, who received an Oscar nomination for his role in the film), a Hutu married to a Tutsi who minds his own business and steers clear of politics whenever able. Paul is shocked out of his apathy by the wanton slaughter of his wife's people and protects them from bloodthirsty Hutus by housing the Tutsis in the four-star hotel he manages.

The movie is not so much entertaining as it is enlightening. How Paul needlessly risks his life to saves the lives of Tutsis is a perfect counterpoint to the inaction of the United Nations and the West. Paul didn't have to help-- he is Hutu. All he had was his network of connections, access to some cash, and an empty hotel-- and he used everything, and then some, to save people he didn't even know. When journalist Jack Daglish (played by Joaquin Phoenix) says "I am so ashamed," just as he steps on the bus that will whisk foreign nationals away from the chaos in Rwanda, he might as well have spoken for the West's leaders.

Must-viewing for heads-of-state, UN officials, and the general public.

Flights of Fancy

For those gifted with height, athleticism, and the burning desire to become the next Michael Jordan, the National Basketball Association (NBA) is where dreams come true.

For those of us who want to be the next Michael Jordan, but have neither the height nor the athleticism to bridge the gulf between dream and reality, there is NBA Live 2005.

NBA Live 2005 is a video game, one where the fantasies of every Jordan wannabe come to life. It allows mere mortals to take control of their favorite NBA teams and players. Everything is realistic, from the skills ratings of the players to the color commentary provided by the same people who cover the real NBA games. Over the years, improvements in the game have made it so real that it's difficult to do the same thing over and over against your opponent-- whether it's the computer or another person. Thus, every game is a totally different experience-- making it extremely challenging, and, of course, addictive.

(How addictive? According to an article in the New York Times, some kids even prefer the video game to watching the real thing.)

One feature of NBA Live that allows virtual athletes to do everything they can't do on a real basketball court is the ability to create a player from scratch-- with all the attributes and skills necessary to go up against the NBA's superstars.

The image here is a perfect example. Here, a version of me has just blown by Tracy McGrady of the Houston Rockets for a reverse slam. Though my virtual counterpart is taller than McGrady (six-ten versus McGrady's six-eight), he can run faster and jump higher. Cyber Jed is also a better dribbler, shooter, passer, and defender.

In a world where the harsh realities of genetics make it impossible to fulfill one's basketball fantasies, video games are a healthier and more productive alternative to daydreaming. I may not have been born like Mike, but I'm glad that the wonders of technology make it possible for me to watch myself play like him.

Laughing Matter... or Not

Trust Filipinos to find something funny in the midst of Gloriagate, the scandal involving the wiretapped conversations between someone who sounds like the President and someone who, according to some COMELEC people, is COMELEC Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano.

Since the scandal broke, anti-GMA text jokes and the "Hello Garci" ringtone have made the rounds of the Texting Capital of the World. (The "Hello Garci" ringtone is so popular that the site that offered it-- txtpower.org-- crashed because of the thousands of people who wanted to download it.) Among the best-selling CDs now being peddled on the streets of Manila is a copy of the alleged GMA-Garci tapes on CD.

However, the people in Malacañang don't find this funny. The Philippine Daily Inquirer reports:

Malacañang is taking seriously all anti-Arroyo text rumors, text jokes, the peddling of CD copies of the Gloria-Garci audio tape, the wildly popular "Hello Garci" ring tone, and the Internet Web journals or blogs that have become the medium for political dissent by tech-savvy Filipinos.

xxx xxx xxx

"While these text messages are sometimes illogical, these are being done to create doubt or confusion in the minds of the people," Bunye said, asking texters, bloggers and CD pirates to "stop all the intrigues."

Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye adds that all these text messages and "other modes of disinformation" reach Malacañang, and they're "not taking them lightly."

I guess sometime in the last week Bunye lost his sense of humor. I don't blame him. The prospect of unemployment can do that to you.

Anyway, my word of advice to Bunye, et al.? Lighten up, and just do your friggin' jobs.

Just because a lot of people are getting a kick out of the whole GMA-Garci episode doesn't mean they want to kick you out. As for his plea for texters, bloggers, and CD pirates to "stop all the intrigues," here's what I think.

One, I hardly think forwarding a text joke-- even one political in nature-- qualifies as sowing intrigue. People find the jokes funny. And with all the crap we have to deal with, a good laugh-- at the expense of the President, or not-- is a welcome reprieve from the dreariness that is Life in the Philippines.

Two, I disagree that the discussion of any political issue on the internet-- this one, in particular-- contributes to political instability. Sure, the internet can be a source of innuendo and unintelligent opinion-- but so are our national dailies. You want intelligent, objective commentary? You read blogs, not the columns of these so-called opinion makers in our broadsheets-- who pass opinion for fact, don't even cite their sources properly, and sometimes twist the truth to suit their politics and personal agendas.

Three, I don't think those selling copies of GMA's wiretapped conversations contribute to creating "doubt and confusion in the minds of the people." The Administration is doing a great job at this on their own. Some of the President's men say that it's her on the tape, but it's been spliced. Others claim that it's not her, but some impersonator. Ano ba talaga? (What is it, really?)

If they want people to stop poking fun at GMA and this Administration, then they better get their act together, stop fooling around, and focus on ways to improve the lives of our people.

Because that is not a laughing matter.

For more news, reviews, and whatnot, log on to http://jedeva.multiply.com/

Martial Law?

Originally posted on 06.17.2005 at http://jedeva.multiply.com/

The latest product of the Philippine rumor mill has President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo declaring martial law to put an end to the crap that's been flying since her husband and panganay (eldest born) were accused of accepting payoffs from jueteng operators.

Juetenggate (as this scandal was subsequently named, in reference to Watergate, the scandal that forced then US President Richard Nixon to resign) was quickly followed by Gloriagate, the scandal involving wiretapped conversations between (depending on whom you believe) someone who sounds like the president, and (again, depending on whom you believe) Commission on Elections Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano. The conversations supposedly prove that GMA cheated in the last presidential election.

Today, newspapers reported that guns supposedly meant to help destabilization efforts were intercepted by customs agents. Now the Administration is saying that all these events are evidence of a last-ditch effort by the opposition to oust GMA.

GMA has repeatedly said that as the democratically-elected president of this screwed republic, there is no way she will step down. In light of the unrelenting attacks against her person, it isn't surprising that there are rumors that the president is considering declaring martial law to put an end to this crisis of sorts.

Section 18, Article VII of the Philippine Constitution states:

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. In case of invasion or rebellion, when the public safety requires it, he may, for a period not exceeding sixty days, suspend the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus or place the Philippines or any part thereof under martial law. Within forty-eight hours from the proclamation of martial law or the suspension of the privilege of the writ of habeas corpus, the President shall submit a report in person or in writing to the Congress. The Congress, voting jointly, by a vote of at least a majority of all its Members in regular or special session, may revoke such proclamation or suspension, which revocation shall not be set aside by the President. Upon the initiative of the President, the Congress may, in the same manner, extend such proclamation or suspension for a period to be determined by the Congress, if the invasion or rebellion shall persist and public safety requires it. (emphasis mine)

The only way GMA can justify declaring martial law given the conditions outlined above is to simply say that "the public safety requires it."

So does it?

Let's see.

Allegations of corruption are nothing new to the First Family. So are accusations of massive cheating in the last election. The difference between these new scandals and the ones that came before it is the (supposed) existence of proof. In Jueteggate, witnesses under oath swore that First Gentleman Mike Arroyo and Congressman Mikey Arroyo accepted payoffs from jueteng operators. In Gloriagate, taped conversations reportedly prove beyond doubt that GMA cheated FPJ. It is the weight of the evidence, plus the relentlessness of the opposition in exploiting these scandals, that have made many people-- businessmen, in particular-- nervous.

For many, GMA included, the possibility of People Power IV is very real, and very scary. Loyalty checks among the military are being made left and right, to ensure that the military and the PNP don't do to GMA what they did to Erap in 2001. Most people-- the military included-- probably think kicking out GMA isn't necessary... yet. Yes, the peso is falling. Yes, the stockmarket is performing poorly. Yes, foreign businessmen are getting turned off. But political bickering is just business as usual in this country.

However, an argument could be made that allowing the attacks against GMA to continue unabated could worsen the socioeconomic climate and lead to a situation that would require the implementation of measures to protect the interests of Filipinos-- i.e., martial law.

Will it ever come to that, given the events of the past few weeks? I don't think so. The president may be wading in shit, but as long as people believe that the Administration is stable enough to survive these scandals (it is, even if they themselves doubt it), things will go back to normal in no time.

Flirting with the idea of declaring martial law is a dangerous business. Declaring martial law would be interpreted as GMA admitting that things are downright shitty. GMA would have to say, "we're in deep trouble, and the only way to address this is through drastic measures like martial law." It won't serve to reassure the public. On the contrary, declaring martial law would only fan the flames of panic, bring back painful memories, and provide the opposition with more ammunition by which to attack the president's already questionable credibility.

Not So Fast Food

We deliver your food in thirty minutes or it's yours, free of charge.

This is a pretty standard guarantee given by fastfood joints to people who have food delivered to their homes or offices. One of the twentieth century's most novel concepts, fastfood delivery is manna from heaven for those putting in extra hours at work or are too tired to whip up something to eat at home. It may be hell on your health, but it's also a hell of a convenience.

In all my years of fastfood delivery experience (always on the receiving end, of course), I've never been able to partake of a free meal resulting from the breach of the delivered-in-thirty-minutes-or-it's-free guarantee.

Until last night.

Last night we ordered food from Shakey's, and as is customary, they asked that we synchronize our time with theirs. According to them, the order was placed at 6:26 p.m., and they promised delivery in thirty minutes or we wouldn't have to pay for it.

Not that we thought there was a chance they wouldn't deliver our dinner in time. The nearest Shakey's-- a newly-opened branch located near the corner of UN Avenue and Orosa St.-- is a short five-minute walk from the Court. It was unlikely they'd be late.

But lo and behold, a little over thirty minutes later (just before 7 p.m.), our chicken, mojos, and pizza were nowhere to be found. Since the others were busy editing our weekend press releases, I was tasked to: (1) find out where our goddamned food was, and (2) remind them that per their guarantee, our dinner would be on them.

I called the Shakey's hotline and told the operator that our dinner wasn't there yet, and that since more than thirty minutes had passed since we placed our order we wouldn't be paying for it. The operator then politely replied that yes, we placed our order at 6:26 p.m., but it was relayed to the designated branch at 6:35 p.m., hence the cut-off time would be 7:05 p.m., not 6:56 p.m.

That was crap, I incredulously replied. First of all, I said, "you guys asked us to synchronize our watches to 6:26 p.m., the understanding being that the thirty-minute guarantee began once the order was taken." Nothing was said about the reference point for the time guarantee being the time the order was relayed to the branch responsible for the delivery. If that was so, I added, then "you should have said so, and then asked the branch in question to call and tell us what time they got our order."

By this time my blood started to boil. As courteous as the Shakey's person on the other end of the line was, I couldn't help thinking that they were trying to bullshit their way into not honoring their guarantee.

As we were discussing this, my officemate informed me that it was past 7:05 p.m. That rendered our previous discussion moot. I told the operator what time it was, and informed her that even if we followed her (flawed) reasoning and based the cut-off on 6:35, they still failed to deliver on time.

At this point the operator probably sensed I wouldn't give in. So she told me that the manager of the Orosa Branch would call to clarify the matter. As if on cue, the delivery guy from Shakey's arrived, and had this worried look on his face when we informed him we wouldn't pay the bill. So we called the branch up and informed the manager that we had no intention of paying them.

Thankfully, she didn't protest, and apologized for the delay. Seems that their branch was full that night, and consequently their delivery service (as my officemate put it) "suffered from their own success."

So, the whole episode ended happily ever after (especially for our OIC, who had offered to treat those of us doing OT). To the credit of Shakey's, they did honor their guarantee. Still, I wonder what would have happened had they delivered our dinner after 6:56 p.m. (our cut-off time) and before 7:05 p.m. (their cut-off time). I think they would have still argued their case. I also think they would failed to get a centavo. Attys. Guerra, Angeles, and Erni v. Shakey's Orosa?

No contest.

The National Pastime

For years I've heard people question our country's obsession with basketball. Basketball, according to some, is a dead-end sport for us hobbit-like people. We're not tall enough, fast enough, or athletic enough to compete with caucasians (they're bigger), blacks (they're faster than a speeding bullet and can leap tall buildings in a single bound), and yes, even the Chinese-- who have the luxury of having a billion players to choose from.

But hey, obsessions aren't supposed to make sense. Filipino bodies may have been made for football, but Filipino hearts belong to basketball. Take myself, for example. I may enjoy playing the beautiful game more than shooting hoops, but I'd be lying if I said I'd prefer to watch the finals of the UEFA Cup rather than the NBA Finals.

Why the love affair with hoops? Why the sudden dip in office productivity during the NBA Finals? Why the noticable absence of male students in UP (and, I suppose, other universities) during the start of classes?

Basketball is just more entertaining to watch, period. Football fanatics will say otherwise, but then again these are people who've grown to love the sport, understand the intricacies of the game, and appreciate everything happening on the pitch even if a single goal isn't scored in ninety minutes of play. In short, football is an acquired taste, one that is best acquired when one is young.

Basketball, on the other hand, is exciting to watch, even for the uninitiated. With only ten players on the court, the viewer can be taken close to the action, and see the likes of Lebron James soar for dunks (tell me, who doesn't know Lebron James?). Even when the camera zooms out and shows all the plays unfolding, it's easy to keep track of players darting in and out of the paint.

There is a lot of grace, power, speed, and skill on display in both football and basketball. You just don't see most of it in the former, unless you're really familiar with the game of football (read: you play the sport).

Football may be closer to being the ideal team game, a sport where the individual weaknesses of the players can be overcome by great team play. It's a sport where star-laden football superpowers can be upset by the collective effort of a group of spirited, well-motivated average players. A good example is South Korea's upset win over Italy in the second round of the 2002 World Cup, which would be akin to the Philippines beating the US in a basketball game. (Well, I may be exaggerating a bit here...)

If the greater probability for success dictated the focus of our national sports programs, then football would be the logical sport of choice. Unfortunately, it does not. As with most matters of national policy, popularity reigns supreme, and right now basketball is the most popular sport among us Filipinos, hobbits or not. So unless we can re-orient succeeding generations of Filipinos, we'll have to settle with finishing last in the sport we love watching the most.

Digital Bra

Thank you to Disney for giving me something interesting to write about:

Teen actress Lindsay Lohan's breasts have been digitally reduced for forthcoming Disney film Herbie: Fully Loaded, to avoid offending family audiences.

Test screenings for the new movie, the fourth sequel to the 1968 film The Love Bug about a Volkswagen Beetle car with a mind of its own, indicated that some parents felt Lohan's character Maggie Peyton was too raunchy for a children's film. (emphasis mine)

Disney technicians were forced to plough through numerous scenes - especially those showing the busty actress jumping up and down at a motor racing track, reducing her breasts by two cup sizes and raising revealing necklines on her T-shirts. (read full article here)

When I first read about this (in a sports column, no less), I couldn't believe what I saw. I know Disney is synonymous with wholesome entertainment, but come on!

This is puritanism taken too damn far. Kids watching the movie will be too focused on the digitally-enhanced Herbie to give a hoot about Lohan's breasts. As for kids who'll actually be more interested in Lohan than in Herbie... well, watching the movie won't make them any less innocent than they already are.

Note to all parents: your kids will eventually learn about sex, will eventually fantasize about having sex, and will eventually engage in sex. Limiting their exposure to large breasts will not change that.

Labor Unites

A press release I got today from the Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP) read:

With the specter of a rock-bottom crises for the working class amidst the railroading of the expanded Value-Added Tax and its anticipated impact on real wages, militant labor groups have crossed ideological and organizational lines to unite in struggling for a legislated Php125 wage hike.

The leaderships and affiliates of the Bukluran ng Manggagawang Pilipino (BMP) and the Kilusang Mayo Uno (KMU) met this morning under the auspices of a forum of the Congressional Committee on Labor and Employment and pledged unity, cooperation and coordination in advancing their common struggle for the much-needed wage increase.

This is a first for the two biggest labor alliances in the country, who've never worked together becasue of idealogical differences. That they were able to set these aside to achieve a common goal should give GMA pause. It's unprecedented, and indicative of how far organized labor is willing to go to get what it wants. They could call for a welga ng bayan (people's strike), and it could very well be a real welga ng bayan-- one that will actually be felt by the country, and not be ignored.

Mayor Lito Atienza : "My wife was a demon!"

(The following is a news article based on a feature entitled "In Manila, Pills and Condoms Go Underground" by Jaileen F. Jimeno of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism. No serious newspaper will publish it. But the facts are all true. If it sounds idiotic, it's because it is.)

Manila Mayor Lito Atienza recently revealed that his wife became the devil incarnate after taking birth control pills without his knowledge after the birth of their fifth child.

Though Mayor Atienza refused to reveal details of his spouse's demonic behavior, the mayor confirmed that birth control pills were behind his loving wife's transformation.

Atienza says his wife "took the pill without my knowledge and I tell you, she became a devil, a demon."

Mrs. Atienza could not be reached for comment.

To ensure fellow Manileños do not share his fate, Mayor Atienza has prohibited hospitals and barangay heath centers funded by Manila City Hall from distributing contraceptives like condoms and birth control pills to residents of Manila.

The mayor-- who is also Chairman of Pro-Life Philippines-- issued Executive Order 003 on February 29, 2000, which upholds natural family planning methods and discourages "the use of artificial methods of contraception like condoms, pills, intrauterine devices, surgical sterilization and others."

In line with this, Atienza has ordered hospitals funded by the City of Manila to deny requests for sterilization procedures like tubal ligations and vasectomies. This is consistent with his "the more, the merrier" population policy anchored on his thesis that a population boom will lead to prosperity.

(Read the full report of the PCIJ here.)

Obi-Wan Kenobi

After watching Star Wars: Revenge of the Sith, I now have a new-found respect for Obi-Wan Kenobi, the Jedi Master played by Ewan McGregor (in the prequels) and Alec Guinness (in the original Star Wars series).

I used to think Obi-Wan Kenobi was a jack-of-all-trades-master-of-none sort of Jedi Master. I thought he wasn't as talented as Yoda with regards to handling the Force, not as good with a light saber as Mace Windu, and not even close to his padawan, Anakin Skywalker, as a pilot. This, plus the fact that he couldn't control Anakin-- or prevent him from turning to the Dark Side-- were major points against Kenobi.

I changed my mind, however, when I reviewed the villains Obi-Wan cut down in the course of the Star Wars series. In Episode I, he cut down Darth Maul. In Episode III, he beat General Grievous and Anakin Skywalker-- two supposedly formidable opponents. Keep in mind that by beating Darth Maul he defeated someone who had just killed an experienced, full-fledged Jedi Knight (Qui-Gon Jinn). And to think that, at that time, Kenobi was only a padawan, or apprentice. Grievous, on the other hand, was personally responsible for the deaths of numerous Jedi, and, in The Clone Wars Animated Series, showed he was capable of taking on a team of Jedi and coming out on top. But the clincher for me was how Kenobi beat Anakin Skywalker-- the Chosen One. True, Anakin's hubris got the better of him, but you have to give props to Obi-Wan for holding his own until Skywalker made that fatal move that cost him his legs.

Last point. When you think about it, Kenobi never really "lost" a battle. Against Darth Vader in Episode IV, he appeared to have been cut down in their duel, but-- as revealed in later episodes-- he merely became "one with the Force."

Forget the Skywalker hype-- Obi-Wan is the real deal.

The Scarlet Letter

I have been asked to wear red to the office for the next few days. The request is not based on my skin's compatibility with that particular color-- it (my skin) is not. It is also not being made because someone in the office is celebrating his or her birthday next week-- no one is.

The request is being made in line with a campaign to protest one of Chief Justice Davide's latest Memorandum Orders-- Memorandum Order No. 20-2005, AMENDING THE NATURE OF THE APPOINTMENT TO THE PLANTILLA POSITIONS IN THE PROGRAM MANAGEMENT OFFICE (PMO) FROM COTERMINUS TO PERMANENT OR AMENDING FOR THE PURPOSE ADMINISTRATIVE ORDER NO. 71-2001.

Some background. The Program Management Office (PMO) is the office responsible for overseeing the projects of the Supreme Court under the Action Program for Judicial Reform, or APJR. The APJR is the Court's modernization program, which the Chief launched shortly after he began his term. Projects under the APJR include the Court's Electronic Library, Court Administration Management Information System, and the Justice on Wheels mobile court. The PMO's job is to source funds for these projects, and oversee them from conceptualization to implementation.

The status of the appointments of PMO personnel were-- per the Administrative Order that created them (AO No. 71-2001)-- originally coterminus with the Chief, meaning they would have had to go upon the Chief's retirement in December. Memorandum Order 20-2005 changes that. Under the order, the positions in the PMO are now permanent, regular positions.

This hasn't sat well with some people. A few days after the memo came out, a white paper was circulated among the different offices of the SC. It criticizes the Chief's order to make the PMO's plantilla permanent, and calls on Court employees to wear red as sign of protest.

I won't, for a number of reasons.

First, as I said, red doesn't suit me.

Second, I don't have red clothes.

Third, I just don't believe in supporting causes being espoused by nameless, faceless people.

(I won't even go through the points made by the white paper, which really don't tackle the main issue, which is whether the PMO should be made a permanent office. There are a lot of side issues raised, but they distract from the main issue, and don't do much in strengthening their case.)

I've always subscribed to the belief that the courage to speak one's convictions must be accompanied by the courage to stand by them. There are a lot of accusations made in the white paper, but the anonymity of the accuser(s) coupled with the paper's less-than sound arguments have made it impossible to determine the motivation and logic behind this so-called protest. For all I know, the paper could have been written by someone with an axe to grind with the PMO, or the Chief. Heck, the way the white paper was written, it probably was.

The Memo-- and the office it benefits-- should be judged on its own merits, not by the personalities involved. Any commentary on the Chief's Memo and the issues it raised should spark intelligent debate, not fuel petty jealousies.

Till somebody has the guts to claim responsibility for the white paper, and can make a logical case against the permanent existence of the PMO, I'm sticking to what I usually wear.

Dead-weights

In an ideal world, everyone would get what they deserved.

To be more specific, in an ideal workplace, only the truly deserving would enjoy advancement, the hardworking would be given additional pay for the extra hours spent slaving away at work, and only the competent would enjoy job security.

Conversely, the undeserving would not get promoted, the lazy unable to produce any output would be subject to pay cuts, and the incompetent would be fired.

Unfortunately, for those of us who work in government, the opposite is more often than not the way things are.

We wonder why this country isn't going anywhere? Look at Congress, Malacañang, and yes, even the Judiciary. The ranks of government service are filled with lazy, incompetent (not to mention, corrupt) idiots who couldn't write a memo if their lives depended on it.

Of course, not all government employees are a waste of taxpayers' money. There are those in the Supreme Court who've worked here since graduating from law school, and have shunned higher-paying jobs in the private sector to serve the public. They put in long hours and work their butts off for measly salaries and poor benefits.

But for every dedicated public servant are dozens of NPAs (Non-Performing Assets)-- individuals who collect their pay every month even though all they do is stare at their monitor pretending to be working.

It's bad enough that these dead-weights in the Philippine bureaucracy do nothing but contribute to our ever-expanding fiscal deficit. Worse, some of them-- by virtue of their ability to kiss-ass and act busy-- even get promoted! Others, simply by holding on to their jobs, get raises through "stepping," a process by which one's salary is upgraded after a number of years, regardless of one's salary grade. (Under this system, it's possible for a lazy secretary who's worked in Congress for a loooong time to bring home more than a newly-appointed congressional chief-of-staff.)

Then there are those who, despite being obviously incompetent, get promoted after earning the title of "attorney." Their output (zero) may not change, their attitude (impolite, bastos, uncouth) may be the same, and their hours (in at 8:00, out by 4:30) remain unchanged, but lo and behold, they're suddenly considered for promotion?

Bloody hell.

Nothing like a cold dose of reality to kill whatever's left of one's idealism.