The statement was delivered by Princess Jacel Kiram at a 2 pm press conference at the house of Sultan Jamalul Kiram
Now as the battle rages under a tremendous and superior force by the Malaysian composite forces of air force and naval bombardment including army and police force, all we could do is to ask the Almighty Allah to protect our people in Lahad Datu, Semporna, Kunak, Sandakan and all over the island of Sabah. Raja Muda Agbimuddin Kiram encourage by his aspiration together with the 214 members of the Royal Security Force to reclaim and settle peacefully in our homeland. The Royal Force, the Crown Prince, and the many patriots who landed voluntarily will fight to the last man protecting their ideals and aspirations.
It is quite suspicious that this came after PNOY delivered his message yesterday at 4PM. The tactical statements of PNOY and the Malaysian statement are full of hypothetical statements and analogies, which are setting a predicate for the people to be confused and divert their attention on the real issue on how our government mishandled the crisis showing their insensitive attitude to the Sultanate of Sulu and the Muslim sentiments as if we are not Filipinos.
Question, is it now clear that the government of PNOY has now given up and now pursues where to put the blame on the basis of imaginary conspiracies. Mr. President, wala pong nagsusulsol, at wala pong foreign interests na nakikialam sa ginawa po ng Sultanate of Sulu.
Mr. President, hanggang nanindigan si Sultan Jamalul Kiram III at si Raja Muda Agbimuddin sa kanilang na ipagtanggol ang kanilang karapatan sa North Borneo Sabah please,please do not disrespect the integrity of their intentions.
Mr. President, you cannot wash your hands by turning your back on your own people. Hindi na nga kayo nakatulong, ipakukulong pa ninyo ang mga nagsakripisyo ng buhay para sa kanilang karapatan para makuha ang kanilang pag aari at patrimonya ng bansang Pilipinas. LET THE PEOPLE AND THE NATION JUDGE YOU FOR THIS ACT.
Mr. President, you must abide by the constitution to protect your people and fight for the nation’s territorial rights. We challenge you to swear in front of the 98 million Filipinos so that the countless members of the Sultanate of Sulu and the patriotic volunteers will not sacrifice their lives in vain. We want to remind you Mr. President that the Sultanate of Sulu exercises sovereignty for over 400 years before the Philippines was colonized in 1521. Isumpa mo iyan sa mga 98 MILLION FILIPINOS NA BOSS MO, magpakatotoo ka sa iyong sinabi na “KAYO ANG BOSS KO”. Sana maramdaman namin sa kilos at gawa.
We are asking all the Filipino people now to pray for the safety of our Muslim brothers both in Malaysia and in the Philippines and to a peaceful resolution of the Sabah issue. Inshaallah
‘Missed’ targets, unpaid ‘settlements’ While Malaysian officers were crowing about total victory over the Kiram forces in Sabah, the leader of the band was giving interviews to PH journalists. The spokesman of the Sultan of Sulu says the Raja Muda escaped dragnet and aerial pounding. More kin crop up with strange claims. Malaysian media confirm state’s efforts to exert rigid control over the news.
Between a fluid region and a hard state How the politics of identity clash with the politics of colonialism. Author says many in the region “still driven by primordial attachments to place, identity, language and culture” – handed down from colonizers” and have a hard time accepting that why certain peoples with ancient ties refuse to accept nation-states’ borders .
With the Sabah death toll rising to 27 Sunday (March 3), various groups call for an end to violence. Hardly any group backs the position of “unconditional surrender” pushed by Manila or Kuala Lumpur.
Also carries a reminder of the Kiram sultanate’s darker side.
Opposition demands open parliament inquiry intoSabah mess. This is an opposition coalition network that includes the People’s Justice Party (PKR), Democratic Action Party (DAP), and Pan-Malaysian Islamic Party (PAS). It is led by Anwar Ibrahim.
The Sultan Sa Ramain speaks, 1934“…a classic case of shifting self-definition, attaching new value and meaning to one’s identity in the prospect of advancing its political interestsand exigencies of power within the parameters of a newfound state. This is a clear case wherein ethnic identity is simply not fixed but malleable and shaped by one’s interest in preserving power and access to resources”
Sabah issue : It’s borders with long(er) histories, stupidBy historian Patricio Abinales Jr. “Where Manila and Kuala Lumpur classify residents of Tawi-Tawi and neighboring Sabah as “Filipinos” and “Malaysians,” respectively, the inhabitants see these official tags as skin-deep and their utility limited (to be brought up only during elections and when they pass official immigration posts). Instead of these “modern” categories, they are comfortable with how they really call themselves—Tausug, Sama Dilaut, Sama Delaya, Kazadan, etc. These are identities that persist and to which a new layer—citizenship—would be added.”
Salonga explains Sabah claim.Excerpts from a speech that Sen. Jovito R. Salonga delivered on March 30, 1963, by way of rebuttal to the speech of Sen. Lorenzo Sumulong berating the Philippine claim to North Borneo (Sabah), which was filed by President Diosdado Macapagal on June 22, 1962, followed by the London negotiations of January 1963
Rizal’s Settlement Project in Sabah: “if it is impossible for me to give my country liberty. I should like to give it at least to these noble countrymen of mine in other lands”. …Rizal was apparently considering of relocating his family in Sabah where he can organize a Filipino community who would devote themselves in agriculture, he serving as the leader. He observed in Hong Kong that Englishmen governed their colony well far from the persecutions suffered by the natives of Philippines from the Spaniards.
Amina Rasul notes there may be agitators — but it could be Malaysian, not PH stunt (w historical background) Left unresolved, the standoff in Sabah can escalate into an international incident that could create tension between Malaysia and the Philippines. Worse, there may be vested interests that will fuel an escalation into conflict. For instance, how true are the rumors from Malaysia that this incident may be driven by local politicians out to destabilize the ruling party, UMNO, by creating fear among the Sabahans? After all, the Malaysian government, under UMNO leaders, have been fully supporting the peace process with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. News reports from Malaysia surmise that although Prime Minister Najib Razak is popular, the UMNO may be losing support. If this trend continues, then the opposition led by Datuk Anwar Ibrahim may have a stronger hand in challenging the UMNO in the June elections. http://www.mindanews.com/mindaviews/2013/02/24/commentary-the-sabah-standoff/
MILF, BIFF mum over Sabah firefight (And ARMM Gov Mujiv Hataman on his role as emissary to the Kirams) Acting ARMM Gov. Mujiv Hataman, in an interview also yesterday, said that he tried but failed to convince the Kiram family to resolve the matter peacefully. He said that for about a week, he talked and negotiated with the Kirams, upon the instruction of President Benigno Aquino, for their supporters to withdraw from Lahad Datu. http://www.morobloggers.com/author/ferdinandh-b-cabrera/
SOMEONE ELSE’S WINDOWS: Clueless on Sabah Maybe present realities no longer favor pursuing the Sabah claim. Consider this report by Ed Lingao of the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism (MindaNews, February 21, 2013): “Many of the Tausugs we encountered detested the idea of the Philippine government reclaiming Sabah. Refugees from war and poverty, many of these Tausugs see little benefit in a Sabah under the Philippine flag; in fact, for them, it is a worrying proposition, not unlike jumping from the clichéd frying pan into an even bigger fire.” Then there is the peace process between the Moro Islamic Liberation Front and the Philippine government being brokered by Malaysia. Perhaps this is one of the things at the back of Aquino’s mind when he convinced the Kirams to leave Sabah. He could be thinking that a miscalculation on Sabah might negate the gains of the peace talks. http://www.mindanews.com/mindaviews/2013/02/28/someone-elses-windows-clueless-on-sabah/
By Former President Fidel V. Ramos. Even supposedly knowledgeable DFA Assistant Secretaries and Malacañang Spokespersons today have also beclouded the issues – instead of offering doable options for Sultan Jamalul Kiram III, the designated official “Sultan of Sulu” during the November 2012 conclave of the various factions of the Sultanate (traditionally the opposing claimant heirs).http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/396189/philippines-sulu-malaysia-sabah-asean-first-of-two-parts#.UTKH40LWGlI
Flashback# Filipino Refugees from Sabah: Trapped in an Endless Journey Hundreds of thousands of Filipinos in southern Philippines flock to nearby Sabah for a better life. Again and again, they are sent back to their land of birth. This ordeal became harshest last August and September when thousands of them – called undocumented aliens by Malaysian authorities – were forcibly sent home. But that is just part of a long journey that begins with abject poverty and war. http://www.bulatlat.com/news/2-41/2-41-refugees.html
#Sabah #flashback Remember when the Malaysians pulled out as 3rdparty- mediator in GRP-MILF peace talks? Former U. P. College of Law dean Merlin Magallona reports that “the present Baseline Law, Republic Act No. 3046 of 1961 was amended by Republic Act No. 5446 of 1968. Section 2 of the present Baseline Law provides that “the definition of the baselines of the territorial sea of the Philippine Archipelago as provided in this Act [Rep. Act No. 5446] is without prejudice to the delineation of the baselines of the territorial sea around the territory of Sabah, situated in North Borneo, over which the Republic of the Philippines has acquired dominion and sovereignty.” But despite this clear mandate of the law, Dean Magallona notes that “House Bill No. 3216 (with Congressman Antonio V. Cuenco as principal author) and its counterpart in the Senate (S. No. 1467, with Senator Trillanes as principal author) has deliberately eliminated Section 2 of Rep. Act. No. 5446 in reference to Philippine sovereignty over Sabah, as shown in the deliberations of the House Committee on Foreign Affairs on 20 November 2007.” http://midfield.wordpress.com/2008/05/05/malaysia-peace-talks-pullout-linked-to-sabah-claim/
BALIK TANAW SA SABAH from PinoyWeekly “Kaugnay ng umiinit ngayong usapin tungkol sa Sabah na kinaligtaan na yatang habulin ng gobyerno, matapos ang magkasunod na rehimen nina yumaong Pres. Diosdado Macapagal at Ferdinand Marcos, minabuti naming muling ilathala rito ang artikulo naming ito (unang lumabas sa PINOY WEEKLY, may petsang Setyembre 25-Oktubre 1, 2002 http://pinoyweekly.org/new/2013/03/balik-tanaw-sa-sabah/
I am not expert on this issue. This is what I can do to broaden and deepen the discussion beyond who’s ready to fight and die and who’ll take the flak.
MLQ3’s Annotated Timeline will give the persevering a year’s worth of additional reading materials if you get links for everything that could interest you
MILF, BIFF mum over Sabah firefight (And ARMM Gov Mujiv Hataman on his role as emissary to the Kirams) http://www.morobloggers.com/author/ferdinandh-b-cabrera/
And THIS By Former President Fidel V. RamosEven supposedly knowledgeable DFA Assistant Secretaries and Malacañang Spokespersons today have also beclouded the issues – instead of offering doable options for Sultan Jamalul Kiram III, the designated official “Sultan of Sulu” during the November 2012 conclave of the various factions of the Sultanate (traditionally the opposing claimant heirs).
They should have let Kez Ban stay, if only to sign a Top 20 duet with Charlie Askew. THAT would wrest us from the catatonia induced by a godawful “Sudden Death” round for the first ten of 20 American Idol male finalists.
Either the conspiracy theorists are right — judges have deliberately cut out the more talented male contestants — or it’s just the roll of the dice in Las Vegas. The day’s burning question: Why are the Divas all in the male round?
Starting with Paul Jolley, whose overwrought performance knocked out all the nuance of Keith Urban’s “Tonight I Wanna Cry”. Very frustrating. He has a great voice but has yet to learn the first thing about restraint. All that throbbing buried the lyrics. That wounded puppy look just doesn’t work. Betcha if he tries it with Nicki, she’d zap him here, there and everywhere just to teach him to stay away.
The second singer proves that they’ve roped in as many versions of Ken for Nicki to butcher while Mariah weeps like some pious Madonna. Hail, Nicki!
Nobody’s going to miss Johnny Keyser – see those youtube clips where His Cockiness falls flat beside the hilarious Heejun. Cowboy Ken sings “I Won’t Give Up” with the same dynamics from start to finish: all volume and emotion from Hades ‘ icy depths. A review of his performance shows I owe cowboys an apology. Denims are all he has in common with them.
I love gays, too, but the only important thing to take home from J’Da’s “Rumor Has It” is Keith Urban’s masterful way of saying, “you sucked”. Diplomacy and then a smooth stiletto thrust. J’Da stopped mid-grin. But if she appears in a musical with Sasha Baron Cohen, I’m lining up.
I started giggling at Chris Watson’s second line and went out for Coke on the fourth. Nuff said. Bandanas and studs and shiny stuff don’t make for authenticity.
Delfin Velez appeared mid-way and saved Idol from an exodus of its audience. There are few singers who can make a voice crack sound “organic” –Idol’s favorite jargon these days. It gives that final dab of realness to a very genuine performance: crisp, clean, musical story-telling that gains power as he slides into Spanish lyrics. (He also gave the best Idol cover ever of “What A Wonderful World” in Hollywood.)
Any dude who has to keep reminding us that he’s a hit with the ladies is… well, okay, may the tweens smother you in molasses, Elijah Liu! There’s no timbre in his voice, He does make nice goo-goo eyes, though not in the league of Stephano the boxer.
You’d think Charlie Askew (above) singing about missing his wife would sound ludicrous. As Urban says, he makes it work. It’s almost criminally insane but those eyes and the contrast between bravura and sweetness tell you this strange, strange kid gets what “Rocket Man” is all about. After all, he’s already channeled heartache into a powerhouse cover of “Somebody that I Used to Know”. Plus, he made Urban say that zinger – lovechild of Freddy Mercury and Woodstock. Charlie will forever live on the brink – he sees too much truth and blurts out what would make most people uncomfortable. But that could be a plus in the age of the girl with the dragon tattoo.
Urban should vet every guy (or gal) out there who wants to do his songs. Jimmy Smith (ugh, what a boring name) strips “Raining on Sunday” of every layer of sensuousness and languor. Oh, Dude, why are you smiling like a cheerleader atop a pyramid in a song about cuddling under the covers all afternoon?
Curtis Finch goes last. And leaves me cold. Sure, he can make a gazillion runs. But he is just too sinister and it’s not the color of his skin. Jacob Lusk, in 2011, was a diva but also a friend you could giggle with. And he had compassion, whereas Finch’s little eyes…. Ah, that’s just my imagination. Just don’t like all that caterwauling, whether by men or women. I want singers who live their songs, not brutes who bludgeon us into submission and then lick their lips as they announce us saved.
Finch goes through, of course. Idol still needs fireworks. Still, he’s not going far. The voters will hate him.
Velez was a clear winner. Charlie – aaah, they need some quirky ones in there, too, and he does have real talent. (I want him to sing “Joanna” from Sweeney Todd on musicals night thought he’s more liable to choose the barber’s song.) Elijah can still slay those imaginary ladies. And Jolley might just get some redemption if he stops sniveling and starts singing his heart out.
For the gals, these ones go on:
Angela Miller: If she doesn’t watch it, she’ll become a caricature. This isn’t Glee, baby. Don’t cover the diamond with cheap glitter.
Kree Harrison *above): Will probably bring out her songs at the right time. Somewhere along the way, she’ll have to ditch the polo shirts. When guys like Phillip Phillips stick to their guns, it’s called integrity. When gals do it (like Kelly Clarkson), they are called “difficult” at the least. That’s Hollywood.
Teena Torres: I don’t know. Great voice, great reading of a song. But the spark just isn’t there. And this IS American Idol.
Amber Holcomb should throw away the standards and just go for sexy R&B. Or sexy rock. Or sexy anything. Or the tweens will kill her. Fast.
Adriana Latonia seems to be miles ahead of Jessica Sanchez in the character department. But she needs edge. And she needs to stop singing those videoke staples and borrowing mom’s gowns.
For the first time since its founding almost a decade ago, MediaNation, a network that holds regular dialogues to address pressing industry issues, has signed a covenant against media corruption.
The network sees the May 2013 elections as an opportunity to engage media stakeholders and their publics in repairing “the great damage” corruption has done to Philippines society. It invited individual politicians and representatives of political parties and party-list groups for the initial signing rites at the Edsa Shangri-la Hotel. Among the news organizations represented were ABS-CBN, GMA, TV5, the Inquirer Group, Rappler and Newsbreak, BusinessWorld and the Center for Community Journalism and Development.
Former senators Jun Magsaysay, and Ernesto Maceda, Rep. Mike Romero of the LDP, Rep. Mel Sarmiento of the Liberal Party, representatives for Rep. Mark Villar of the Nacionalista Party and Rep. Jack Enrile, and Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casino represented political groups.
“We recognize that there are political candidates and media practitioners who uphold the highest ethical standards, but we also realize the problem is real,” the covenant states.
Owners included
The signatories from both sides pledged “not to tolerate the practice of ‘envelopmental’ journalism, whether payment for media favors or soliciting the same.
The media framers of the covenant covered “journalists and other media practitioners and their principals,” since the sale of “news packages” is often initiated by owners of news companies.
Casino stressed that corruption isn’t limited to individual journalists. An activist, Casino said is used to “free publicity.”
But, “rules have suddenly changed. Kandidato ka na. May bayad ka na. And this is company policy, not some lone corrupt journalist.”
The signatories pledged to report instances of corruption in the media on both sides. The covenant clearly excludes “legitimate advertising.”
Political and media signatories agreed on the need to protect those who report corruption in media. But they also stressed the need for formal complaints and submission of evidence.
“This Covenant is just a single step in the larger process to root out corruption, itself a complex problem. But solutions begin with the acknowledgement and discussion of the problem,” the covenant notes.
Public’s role
MediaNation participants also plan to launch a website documenting corruption in the industry. Representatives from different news organizations will be meeting to discuss the mechanics of reporting and feedback.
The network wants the public to join the campaign.
ABS-CBN integrated news head, Ging Reyes, said journalists “would need each other’s support, as well as the help of the public in ensuring that we hold ourselves accountable and that we remain true to our word.”
Howie Severino of GMA said civic society is already assertive and pockets of critics can be found on social media networks.
“We may not always agree with them,” Severino said, “but criticism is welcome.”
Businessworld Publisher and Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility leader, Vergel Santos, said media groups would ensure that the anti-corruption website would be managed with professional journalism standards.
Politicians responded favorably to the covenant.
“It’s a step in the right direction. It may not immediately lead to a solution, but it’s a right step,” Romero said. “The word ‘envelopmental’ covers everything.”
Magsaysay said media should address the problem of corruption not only during elections, “but also consistently”. He called corruption “a social cancer” eating away at the fabric of the nation.
No guarantees
Sarmiento said the LP would cascade the covenant down to towns and cities next week. While representatives of the political parties could not guarantee cooperation of all their members, Sarmiento said any formal report alleging attempts to bribe media would be investigated by the party.
Bart Guingona, convenor of Media Nation said the network intends to expand its anti-corruption campaign to other practices other than actual exchange of money. Rappler’s Maria Ressa said the crucial first step was to make it easier for those who want to be clean.
The move has its critics. Former publisher and congressman Teddy Boy Locsin pointed out the covenant left out other forms of corruption, including biased reportage and turning a blind eye to the wrongdoings of friends of journalists and their employers.
Other critics called the campaign self-righteous. But Severino said the goal is a society where honesty is the norm instead of a rarity, a day when displays of honesty among journalists, or taxi drivers or politicians are no longer considered news. #30
All these years of lobbying for the Freedom of Information bill, you get to know your “enemies”:
Legislators at the House of Representatives who insisted on lumping their Right of Reply measure with the FOI (RoR would reward politicians and other fat cats who dodge questions raised by media, by allowing them to dictate how, when and where to offer their spin);
Malacanang, the President in particular, for reneging on a promise to certify the bill as urgent, remaining hostile (lukewarm at best) to the idea of FOI – even when the Palace’s version had been adopted by the Committee on Information and (more reluctantly) accepted by advocates;
Palace lapdogs that hemmed and hawed, delaying movement even at the Committee level;
The Leadership of the HoR, Liberal Party stalwarts, who jump to crack the whip for the President’s pet initiatives and likewise take their FOI cues from him.
With only nine session days before Congress adjourns for the campaign season, the House leadership yet again delayed plenary proceedings needed to muster FOI passage at second and third readings. (Read the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism account here)This prompted a walkout by advocates. But it surprised no one.
What stunned was the move of militant party-list bloc, Makabayan to withdraw support for the bill.
OPPOSITION
Bayan Muna Rep. Teddy Casiño, a principal author of the bill, explained in a press conference that while the bloc supports the public clamor for the passage of an FOI bill, “we feel that the substitute bill, because of the weight of the restrictions, does not anymore reflect our vision of a genuine Freedom of Information Bill.” He said they would push for amendments in plenary and will duly co-author the measure again if and when the exceptions are deleted or substantially amended. “What we need is a genuine FOI bill, not a watered-down version.”
Casino said the bloc “would push for amendments in plenary and will duly co-author the measure again if and when the exceptions are deleted or substantially amended.” On Twitter, hours after Makabayan’s announcement, Casino called it a necessity.
Technically, he is right. We all saw Senators Ralph Recto and Tito Sotto during the Senate plenary proceedings on the RH Law.
Many of Makabayan’s concerns were also raised by groups advocating the FOI. It is a coalition of various political stripes. It could be that after years and years of pushing the measure, most advocates decided to swallow these bitter pills.
Everyone thought a consensus had been reached.
As blogger Noemi Lardizabal-Dado noted:
She wasn’t the only one confused. We were all blindsided.
WHY ONLY NOW?
“DEKALOGO” by Elmer Borlongan
Call us naive. But many of the FOI advocacy groups have sat and discussed and marched on the streets with Makabayan legislators and their followers on other issues.
We’ve met each other several times in the last several months, fighting the Cybercrime Lawor urging justice for the victims of the Ampatuan Massacre, among other issues. In all those meetings and huddles, not once did a Makabayan representative attempt to drag us from the road to perdition.
I am a member of the National Union of Journalists of the Philippines (NUJP), which advocates for FOI. There has been no call, no text message, no twitter post to indicate Makabayan’s position on our position. Reams of statements, manifestos and updates have been written, so many fora called, so many meetings held (with or without the bill’s main author, Rep. Erin Tanada) — NADA.
Nobody drew any of us aside to warn, hey, you’re agreeing to a meaningless measure or, as Kabataan Party-list Rep. Raymond Palatinodubbed the substitute bill, a “Freedom of Exemption” measure. Wala man lang nagsabi, “mag-babanggaan tayo dito.”
JUST. THIS. SUDDEN. ANNOUNCEMENT. A shot fired. Suddenly, I feel like the enemy. Especially since Casino now calls it “Malacanang’s FOI Bill.”
NO WAY TO TREAT ALLIES
On Twitter last night, a Makabayan supporter and Casino pointed out that they had been open about their disaffection and had issued press releases and spoken in committee hearings; that they had voted for it on the committee level to simply get it out into the plenary.
The subtext being, that they waved it through to halt the delays. Another subtext being, that they’ll fix all problems in the plenary. Someone even said, don’t worry, we’ll sort this out.
Why, thank you!
Is this what Congress does to people? After decades of on-ground political campaigns, Makabayan has forgotten about alliance work? Or, worse, forgotten what ALLY means?
Has the line between political campaigns and legislative work now become a WALL, so that Makabayan purely focuses its tactics and strategies on their HoR colleagues and the Palace? Was it so hard to talk to us, call us to a meeting, and present, section by section, their concerns over what they now call a “fake” FOI bill?
Yes, we supported that bill. Call us unenlightened. Call us backward. Did you ever bother to sit down and enlighten us? Did Makabayan see us as so blinkered and hoodwinked, so unworthy of dialogue? That “fake” bill did not drop from the sky yesterday.
There was enough time — god knows Rep. Ben Evardone, with a nod and a wink from Speaker Sonny Belmonte, did enough noynoying these past months.
There was enough room for the advocates to thrash out their issues. Makabayan wouldn’t have gotten everything it wanted, but it could have gotten some of its demands. Many of us had raised the same points. If we eventually agreed to the current version, it was in good faith.
Mindset defines the process. We may have gotten lost in the FOI quagmire. But your loss, Makabayan, seems to be of a more profound sort. (And that is said with great pain.)
Well, there’s one day more, and one more day. Eight days. And the rest of our lives.
There is a reason why Philippine Presidents want clear majorities in the two legislative houses: To make sure pet bills are passed. Chief Executives detail their pet initiatives in their State of the Nation (SONA) speeches at the start of every Congress and then reiterate their wishes as the legislative mill grinds on.
When governance experts grade leadership performance, the ability to shepherd pet measures through Congress is a key segment. Congress leaders, of course, are also measured by the same stick.
In President Benigno Aquino’s last SONA, allusions to the Reproductive Rights bill got the loudest, longest ovation. This is what he said:
“Sana nga po, ngayong paubos na ang backlog sa edukasyon, sikapin nating huwag uling magka-backlog dahil sa dami ng estudyante. Sa tingin ko po, responsible parenthood ang sagot dito.”
He did not specifically mention the RH bill but proponents — and national surveys show most Filipinos back reproductive rights initiatives — thought it was a clear endorsement of the measure. Later on, anti-RH legislators, including Sen. Tito Sotto, would claim Mr. Aquino fell short of an endorsement. Still, as abs-cbnnews.com notes, Malacanang had earlier released the President’s 5-point statement of principle on reproductive rights.
These are:
– Aquino is against abortion.
– He is in favor of giving couples the right to choose how best to manage their families so that in the end, their welfare and that of their children are best served.
– Aquino believes that the state must respect each individual’s right to follow his or her conscience and religious convictions on matters and issues pertaining to the unity of the family and the sacredness of human life from conception to natural death.
– In a situation where couples, especially the poor and disadvantaged ones, are in no position to make an informed judgment, the state has the responsibility to provide.
– In the range of options and information provided to couples, natural family planning and modern methods shall be presented as equally available, Aquino said.
Compromise
Yet, this year, clear signs of trouble loomed for the RH Bill. This was RG Cruz’s report in September, with a subheadline quoting Majority Floorleader Neptali Gonzales as saying “sana magalit na si Presidente” (I hope the President gets mad) so allies finally push the bill.
MANILA – President Aquino finds it difficult to push the Reproductive Health (RH) bill among his congressional allies the same way he pushed for the impeachment of Chief Justice Renato Corona.
Aquino’s political leaders in the House of Representatives concede that the President has to contend with the religious beliefs of his own allies for this purpose.
House Majority Leader Neptali Gonzales said, “mahirap kay Presidente to issue a marching order. The so-called opposition sa RH aren’t political in nature, it’s part of their religious belief, it’s very difficult to impose. This is one time na mahirap talaga kami. As I’ve said in my stint as floor leader, this is first time I’ve seen a bill na divided ang members of the House and no demarcation between majority and minority.”
Liberal Party secretary-general, incoming Department of Transportation and Communications Secretary and current House Appropriations chair, Cavite Rep. Joseph Emilio Aguinaldo Abaya, said Aquino “respects the independence of the 2 bodies of government, thus he merely requests. How effective is that convincing that will be is within his prerogative. If ever such strong requests are made, I think there’s time.”
Abaya added, “ang tingin ko, dinadahan din ni presidente, alam niya di lang parang impeachment ito, there are certain non-political issues he has been very careful. Sa Liberal Party, it’s always consensual, we haven’t gone to that part, what’s clear is the request that we end the debate and I think clearly, he said we will put it to a vote.”
Speaker Sonny Belmonte huddles with Majority Floorleader Neptali Gonzales. Photo from balita.ph
Cruz quoted Gonzales as claiming he and Speaker Feliciano Belmonte back the RH Bill while three deputy speakers oppose it.
“If they can do that, then we can tackle and debate the amendments line by line, sentence by sentence, paragraph by paragraph, section by section. That will take us till kingdom come.”
MFL Boyet Gonzales, the lack of quorum only reflects your weak leadership so I challenge you get the members of HOR to appear & take up #RHB
Gonzalez, replying via reporters,
“blamed the pro-RH bill proponents for not mustering enough support for the bill. He said it is not his job to make sure that there is a quorum in the House.”
“He said it is for the proponents to make sure that they have the numbers every time the issue is tackled.”
Those are strange comments for a man who claims he is an advocate of the RH bill. Cojuangco then bared pressure for her to fall in line.
I am told just keep quiet play ball…i am told you might sabotage bill…ok so am I supposed 2 b silent while YOU dribble till eternity?
Gonzalez would later taunt Cojuangco to “shut up.”
Today Cojuangco decided to publish her timeline of events. In a nutshell, it shows the House leadership washing its hands of the RH bill, bluntly proclaiming it dead — even as they publicly exhibit concern.
7. for a “ride” by such trapo style politics. So there, the truth is out.
Fear factor
The pro-RH forces are nott forcing legislators to agree with them. What they want is a vote, win or lose. Or, if doubters are sincere about improving the law, to start consolidating changes and then vote on a final version.
That’s not an unreasonable call. After all, that is what taxpayers pay legislators to do. If the anti’s are sure of their numbers then they can bury the bill once and for all. So why aren’t they doing it?
The anti’s may want to have their cake and eat it, too. They want to kill the bill. But they do not want a public record of the deed. Not with the coming May 2013 elections.
Sws survey chart showing respondents that want government to fund all forms of legal family planning
Either they may believe in RH but do not want to incur the wrath of the country’s powerful Catholic bishops. Or they fear a backlash among voters who may resent votes against the RH bill.
82% say family planning method is a personal choice;
73% want information on legal methods available from government
Considering that majority of the survey respondents may be Catholics — SWS usually hews to existing demographics — the bishop fear factor isn’t the main cause of absenteeism. It looks like evasion is the choice strategy of the anti-RH bloc. The question is, why can’t the House leadership force a vote and why can’t the Executive help force that vote — as it has with the President’s met causes, like the impeachment of former chief justice Renato Corona?
High growth, glowing praise from investors, commendations from allied nations and global partners. The government has all of these. But in the elections, what voters will remember is this: Did you respond to my needs? Did you vote/act against my needs?
Miracles can happen. But if this bill dies, here’s a prescription from a Facebook friend who doesn’t want to be named because she works for an anti-RH bill senator:
“Time for the pro-RH bill advocates to wield the big stick. If this bill dies, hit the killers where it will really hurt.”
It is the platform of expression that amplifies the roar of the mob. I don’t think cyber space substantially changes people. I believe that people will gradually learn to modify actions as they navigate the brave, new cyber universe.
No matter how addictive social media can be, most people reflect their own personalities on the Web, whether they post their true names and faces or some exotic avatar. The anger that people feel are rooted in very real experiences. We can shout all we want for a gentle, cyber media world — but the final shaping of this space will depend on how we deal with each other on the ground.
There, in the trenches where people bleed and die, and hunger, and nurse obvious and unseen wounds — that is where our social battles will be resolved.
We in the media will have to struggle more, wrestle with our ethical dilemmas. It won’t be easy. One can spend hours trying to explain nuances to a platform with more than 100,000 different voices. But the genie isn’t going back, so we gotta start talking straight with him.
Gregory Paulo Llamoso‘s video of a young woman haranguing a guard at the Santolan LRT2 station went viral overnight. Less that 24 hours after he posted the video Tuesday night (Nov. 13), more than 47,000 people had shared his video. More than 11,000 people had pressed the “like” icon.
Llamoso’s introductory note is straightforward:
CAUGHT ON MY CAMERA:
“RUDE Passenger Humiliate a Lady Guard”
I was about to leave Santolan LRT 2 Station sa may Marcos Highway kanina, but a loud voice caught my attention and all the people present there, ang lakas ng boses niya even she was small..Buti nalang the Lady Guard exhibited the right behavior. She did not fight back and she just kept cool and said her sorry. She didn’t even utter foul words against the bully passenger. I dont know the side of the story but some Bystander told me na sinita siya ng Lady Guard kasi mali ang pinasukan niyang way but the passengers behavior surprised me, sobrang degrading naman yung ginawa niya sa Lady Guard, her arrogance and misplaced sense is a living proof that being a true woman requires more than just privileged education and breeding, kaya parang siya ang walang pinag-aralan in that case..sayang hindi ko alam school niya., pinuntahan ko nalang yung Head ng security and suggested na dalhin sa office yung babaeng nagwawala hindi in public, nagkaroon tuloy ng Scandal dun na really an unacceptable behavior…”
The controversy has given rise to parallel arguments.
Thousands are jeering at the young woman, a coed at a Manila college. Critics mock what they see as speech affectations, what they perceive as the warped logic of her videotaped statements and her general demeanor.
Many of the reactions are downright cruel, imputing moral faults other than the ones shown by Llamoso’s video. Videos have also come out, lampooning the young woman. A fake Twitter account, which many fell for, played out what many see as misplaced snobbery.
A second camp decries what they see as an invasion of privacy. This school thinks no one should post a video — or respond to one — of a private person in a meltdown situation. People have scorned news coverage of an “irrelevant” situation and an “irrelevant” person.
“For me, there is something wrong in the posting of that video. While anyone is free to take pictures or videos, he or she must nevertheless not abuse that right. This means the photographer or the videoer must not use it to hurt, embarass, or humiliate other people in the exercise of his or her right. If there is abuse, he or she can be held accountable for the injury to the one embarrassed. This is what we call in law the ABUSE OF RIGHT DOCTRINE. YOu might technically do something “legal” but you can still hurt people and may be held liable.
“True, the girl might have over-reacted in that incident and true, based only from the video, the security guard appears to be soft spoken, and probably, it is also true that the reaction of the girl might be wrong, but this does not give another the license to humiliate and embarass her to millions of people by posting the video ( especially if he has nothing to do with the incident). There is no such thing as the liberty to hurt people. BTW, the CYbercrime law is irrelevant in this case. You do not need that law to hold accountable an abuser of right.”
A third view sees the subject as fair game but notes the video lacked context and/or that all of us have, at one point or another, lost our tempers with gatekeepers. The difference, of course, being that in the past there would have been very few witnesses with the technical capability to record the incident. And a decade ago, most people would not have thought of sharing that video.
Fair Game
I’ll try to weave through the different strands on this very noisy national dialogue, starting with the issue of privacy and Sta Maria’s take on what he sees as legal but borderline abusive behavior.
The young woman committed no crime against the guard, That’s pretty clear. There were no physical blows. She is not a government official. She is a student. True, she may aspire to fame but that doesn’t automatically make her a public figure.
But those are not the only things to consider here.
There was an altercation that stemmed from her failure to subject belongings to an x-ray scan. She may or may not have suffered a bruise when the guard tried to delay her. Now, let’s view the setting.
LRT train wreck, Rizal Day Bombings, 2000
This was the LRT, which has had a horrifying brush with terrorism. Eleven persons were killed and 19 others were injured by a bomb planted in a train on the LRT1 on Dec. 30, 2000. There have been periodic bomb scares at LRT stations and authorities regularly launch anti-terror and rescue exercises.
LRTA security personnel are instructed to strictly implement the “No inspection, no entry” policy to ensure the safety of passengers, LRTA officer-in-charge Emerson Benitez said in a statement.
Security is not a matter to be dismissed. This was an x-ray process, not some ineffectual stirring with a barbecue stick. Ignore this precautionary measure at airports and you’ll be held by authorities. Even forgetting to turnover your cellphone will cause some hassle. It’s not quite a crime, but it’s a pretty serious lapse that gives LRTA security the right to investigate you — or turn you back.
I’ve had clueless moments, especially on first time visits. When stopped, the proper thing is to give a sheepish smile, say sorry, turn back and follow the rules. Even if a guard raises his or her voice, I’ll take my lumps. This is a different case from some officious guy making things difficult for no good reason.
The videographer did not know about this when he took the video. Neither did the thousands who jeered in the hours after Gregory’s post went up.
Speaking to BMPM’s Anika Real, the former pediatric ICU nurse and aspiring singer said he heard other sarcastic comments — “Bravo! Bravo!” with clapping — from the young woman before deciding to take the video. He said an older man with a cup of coffee — perhaps a fellow commuter — tried to calm the young woman, to no avail. Later that night, he shared his video on his Facebook page, tagging friends: the tacit message being that they share this, too.
Now, Llamoso didn’t just take a video. He also took pains to alert the head of security so the incident could be resolved in a more private setting. The crowd gathering around the two women was beginning to be a security nightmare.
Llamoso is pretty clear about his motives:
“I don’t care how this incident started, nobody has the right to treat another person–especially one who’s merely performing a low-paying job just to put food on the table–this way.”
I understand where Sta. Maria is coming from. But I also understand why to Llamoso — and the many who share his views — this was not just a private matter to be shrugged off.
Chris Lao, in his meltdown, ranted at the world at large, at abstract concepts like neglect. I felt then, and still feel, that he hurt no one. He may have been intemperate but in the context of road rage incidents, he was a boy scout.
What got the ire of most people in the LRT incident was the manner the subject screamed (no other word for it) at the security guard, the patronizing and condescending way she addressed the other woman.
For the many in humble positions who have been placed in a similar situation — think of sales people and waiters and millions of other frontline folk in service industries — this was not an irrelevant thing. The video spoke to untold slights, reminded them of instances when they had to take tongue-lashings in silence. To many people, THIS WAS PERSONAL.
I do not believe Llamaso meant to humiliate or mock the young woman. Even hearing her side, I do not think the videographer was far off the mark. (Kudos to Cesar Apolinario; we at BMPM tried but failed to get her.)
What raises concern is the cruelty heaped on the video subject. Criticism is acceptable but to call her names, to assume and imagine other moral faults, to mock her fragile dreams… that goes into bullying territory.
In proclaiming outrage of bullying behavior, people became bullies, too. We became the enemy.
Did the media worsen this state of affairs?
I cannot speak for everyone. I think several websites and social media platforms tried to gatekeep against the most irresponsible responses. BMPM incurred the ire of some of those who posted when we took down some of the more outrageous comments. (We did not take down criticism of our coverage.)
Llamoso, of course, was not party to the LRT incident but his video raises similar questions on “lifestyle, etiquette, civic awareness and media ethics”, as @unlawyer ponts out.
“tormenting someone with hateful and hurtful text messages, emails, posts and IMs that offend, humiliate or intimidate them.”
There is no doubt that cyber-bullying can have profound impact on a victim. From the same website, here are some of the effects of cyber- bullying: “anger, embarrassment, fear, poor performance at school, loss of confidence and self esteem, revenge cyber-bullying, self-harm, even suicide.”
At least half of these emotions have been felt, at one time or another, by many of the people who joined the Llamoso video fray. Unfortunately, many of us who regularly suffer in silence, intimidated by our antagonists, will strike out at someone we come to see as an epitome of our oppressors.
It is a very human instinct. It doesn’t make it right. That’s like shrugging off the abuse someone heaps today because he or she had been abused as a child.
@Pinoymommy voices the ambivalence many of us feel when she notes that “the bad effect is the bullying. But it’s good because bullies will keep their tempers or be cyberbullied.”
@mrsunlawyer and @Pinoymommy fret at how people, who are otherwise nice in face-to-face encounters, can become really mean on cyberspace. Both think the illusion of anonymity raises bravado among people and lessens their inhibition.
“The detachment afforded by cyberspace makes bullies out of people who would never become involved in a real life incident. The Internet makes bullying more convenient and since the victim’s reaction remains unseen people who wouldn’t normally bully don’t take it as seriously.”
Cyber-space makes us feel more emotions faster — Maria Ressa gives fascinating lectures on how our emotions spread to friends around us, in degrees of separation, and in a more frenetic pace on the social media whirl.
At the same time, the illusion of physical distance can desensitize us to the effects our actions may have on others. I sometimes liken the effect to the cocoon that insulate those drone operators who whoop like cowboys as their bombs fall on right — or wrong — targets. You don’t see the gore up close and personal. You don’t see obvious signs of the harm you do. It’s almost like a video game — let’s try one more time and see if we can blast the SOB to kingdom come.
Most websites on cyber-bullying focus on a more intimate scope — a bully at school taking a fight to the internet. The cases of Chris Lao and the LRT incident, however, are different. While not overtly political brawls, these cases have political and social underpinnings — even if some respondents don’t quite recognize their impulses.
When cyber-bullies come out by the thousands, we’re dealing with a cybermob, the digital equivalent of those old lynching parties or the more modern riots.
The introduction by Adam Bellow warns that today’s threats may “appear in the guise of social and political progress.”
Forum notes say this: “According to Ron Rosenbaum and Lee Siegel, in their provocative contributions to the volume, the extraordinary advances made possible by the Internet have come at a sometimes worrisome cost. Rosenbaum focuses on how online anonymity has become a mask encouraging political discourse that is increasingly distorted by vitriol, abuse, and thuggishness. Siegel argues that the Internet has undermined long-established standards of excellence, promoting participation and popularity over talent and originality. Both writers warn against the growing influence of what Siegel calls “interactive mobs.”
I don’t share the depth of their pessimism or the apportioning of blame. Media, especially social media, doesn’t exist in a vacuum. It reflects society. The vociferous, sometimes ugly exchanges we saw during the US Presidential campaign — and our own in 2010 — were rooted not so much in the ease by which we can hurl insults in cyberspace, as in the very real divides that exist in our respective populations.
Cyberspace didn’t create these feuds — even though it does fuel the exchange. Many factors feed on fear and anger — more so in real life than in cyber space.
It is the platform of expression that amplifies the roar of the mob. I don’t think cyber space substantially changes people. I believe that people will gradually learn to modify actions as they navigate the brave, new cyber universe.
No matter how addictive social media can be, most people reflect their own personalities on the Web, whether they post their true names and faces or some exotic avatar. The anger that people feel are rooted in very real experiences. We can shout all we want for a gentle, cyber media world — but the final shaping of this space will depend on how we deal with each other on the ground.
There, in the trenches where people bleed and die, and hunger, and nurse obvious and unseen wounds — that is where our social battles will be resolved.
We in the media will have to struggle more, wrestle with our ethical dilemmas. It won’t be easy. One can spend hours trying to explain nuances to a platform with more than 100,000 different voices. But the genie isn’t going back, so we gotta start talking straight with him.
This is NOT my interview. This is a transcript of a press briefing by Philippine National Police DIR. GEN. NICANOR BARTOLOME on Nov. 7, 2012.
PNP Chief Nicanor Bartolome. Pix courtesy of @ANCAlerts
There are many factors that make people squeamish about Malacanang’s move to remove the chief PNP — by assigning him from non-duty status, which effectively strips him of all powers of the position.
The big push started when the President Benigno Aquino III was in Russia for the APEC summit, amplified by aides here (though typically, half of them didn’t seem to be aware of the issue), brought up again during PNOY’s recent Laos trip.
The official line is, that the President wants someone in place early so he/she — thought it most certainly will be a he — doesn’t scramble at the height of the election campaign season, when Bart (as he is called by cops and reporters) retires.
Fair enough. We all want clean and honest elections, and to a large extent that will depend on the performance of the PNP.
But people are pointing out: Surely, PNOY knew of Bart’s retirement schedule when he appointed the man?
More important, people are concerned about the President’s penchant for informing media (and his bosses) first about crucial decisions, without first discussing the issues with concerned officials. Which has made for tragicomedy at the PDEA, where both deputy and, eventually, the chief, learned they’d been fired from breaking news. What’s wrong with a phone call, if you can’t be bothered to slot in a meeting or two?
The decisions are legitimate, legal, within his powers. The process — again, the process — leaves you wondering about the President’s increasing tendency to be imperious. I thought that went out of style with his predecessor. Sigh.
I’m sharing the transcript of Bart’s interview to give free rein to his voice. In a nutshell he says:
Yes, he got the news from elsewhere;
He understands where the President is coming from;
He had reminded the President earlier that his retirement comes in March.
People expecting the theatrics of the PDEA officials will be disappointed. Bart is genial. He is almost always cool and calm — admittedly, too much so, according to critics. Best we get if from him directly. I enjoyed the gentle, subtle commentaries 🙂
(I’d like to thank Anthony Vargas. I’ve done very little editing… just to write words in whole, etc.) Bart’s answer in boldface.
On Noy saying you will be non-duty
I have been very consistent with my answers to queries; that is, I serve at the pleasure of the President. Ang aming serbisyo ay depende sa pangangailangan and latest ‘;m hearing is, that the President might ask me to consider an early retirement or non duty status. So I am open tothe idea. I’m open to it. Whatever the President desires I will follow
Have you talked to Noy?
Wala pa kararating nya kahapon reason why im not here yesterday I was in Mindanao working — met with highway patrol group brought with me GenSubong, head of HPG in Davao and discussed with regional officers of HPG the situation in Mindanao as far as car-napping is concerned
Open to DILG Usec?
Wala yun sa condition for me to either retire early or go on non duty status. Kasi there is I think a shortlist now. Sabi nya may shortlist now.Baka siguro wala ako sa shortlist. Sabi ata nya mga retired and private. Di ako kasama dun.(**Note: PNOY promised the new DILG Secretary Mar Roxas that he could have a freehand in staffing the department.)
Are you demoralized?
Di naman. I work for pleasure of the Prez. I work as member of team of the Command in Chief. Siya leader being commander in chief. Ang isang team member should be flexible.
Service ko di nag umpisa kahapon. I’ve been in service since 1981. Yung few months naman kung kailangan for the entire institution e di naman siguro makakasagabal. (If the entire institution needs those few months, maybe it shouldn’t be a problem.)
Noy did not talk to you again?
Di na uli until yung Laos na natanong. Mag-uusap siguro kami
Did you talk after he said it in Russia?
Just nung dumating sya from Russia. Sabi ko, Sir, marso pa. Sabi nya, Marso? Parang siniguro nyang tama. Narinig nya siguro
.Would you prefer non duty or retirement?
Discuss pa naming ni Presidente. Sabi ni Presidente he will discuss it with me. Basta mahalaga ay kung kailangan ito bakit di ko gagawin, e member lang ako ng team. I am with the team of commander in chief
Successor in mind?
After mag usap kami. Wala kami masasabi
When?
Hintay ako kailan mapapatawag
First time this happened to PNP chief?
Hindi, marami na non duty status is just procedure where kung saan ang official din a nagpeperform ng duty nya dahil naghihintay na lang ngretirement. Si Gen Cacdac nag NDS muna kasi ang kanyang retirement 1 buwan pa — kundi 3 weeks one month he went on NDS . His retirementorders effective sa kanyang bday Oct 11 but he did not attend normal office work na because nag NDS ata.
Non duty status hindi naman sinasabi floating. Floating is a different term, meaning tinanggal ka dahil meron ka kinasasangkutan investigation. Ang non duty status, hindi. The non duty statsu ginagawa ng opisyal para mag prepare sa kanyang retirement at least meron one month to prepare his documents. Hindi naman ito bago may ganyan nang gumawa. General Castaneda went in NDS
For PNP chief?
Si Gen Bacalzo nga when I replaced him, di pa nya bday yun. He left his office Sept 9 when I assumed as chief but retirement order effective siguro mga 1 week pa
Yours too long?
Marami reason at intervening event na dapat i-consider. I look at it positively. I should not be the worry of the commander in chief . I should not be the problem
Reports say you did not heed his request to DILG?
Baka di tama un. Sabi nya naman I might, even now I might. But ang mahalaga I’m ready. I should not be a problem. I should be part of the solution
Due to Election ban?
Kung wala naman siguro election baka di naman siguro ako magiging kasama sa NDS. Nagkataon may election
Will it matter if you leave pnp months before retirement?
May pangangailangan. Kasi una sa pagpaplano pwede I consider yun at ung maaaring epekto ng sunod-sunod na pag akyat sa pwesto maari pag alis ako mag aakyatan yan yung isa maari mag move at baka may mag NDS din na director. Di natin alam. Di natin alam
Discussed this with family?
Matagal na natin na-discuss ito. Tinitignan nila, kailan ka ba magreretire? Yan lagi pinag uusapan sa mga pamilya ng nasa service — kailangan kamagreretire, kailan ka papasyal as family ng matagal na hindi nagmamadali — minsan hours lang.
I should not be a problem kung meron. Hypothetical sabi ko, mas gugustohin ko na lang na di ako kasama sa worry nila
kimi cojuangco @kimicojuangco
indayvarona 