Mourning Cory's Passing: Confessions of a 'Leftie' with a Soft Spot for Corazon Aquino

"The greatest paradox of our existence consists in this: that, in order to understand, we must first encumber ourselves with all the intellectual and emotional baggage which is an impediment to understanding." Aldous Huxley, 1956













On Thursday this week, while a brilliant colleague of mine (a law professor) spoke about the Constitution, I was struck about what he said about (in essence) coming from a generation that does not have any sort of ties, involvement, let alone affective historical links with the flawed 1987 Constitution. He's a young man and still is and I guess his point was - why should the flawed 1987 Constitution bind him as if its dogma when clearly it no longer remains relevant nor effective in framing the socio-economic and political consciousness of the current generation and the present time? Of course when it comes to the issue of charter change, his views do not necesarrily differ from the rest of the Faculty of the College of Law who recognize the current incessant charter change lobby in Congress supported by the President and her minions as nothing but bare-faced and brazen power grabbing. So like many of us, he thinks charter change under the present administration is pointless.

Nonetheless, his provocative point about his lack of ties with the 1987 Constitution reminded me of a comment by Aldous Huxley where he affirmed Simone Weil's essay, "Need for Roots" while at the same time emphasized that there is an equally urgent need, on occasion, for total rootlesness.

I'm a little bit older than my colleague. I'm not old enough to remember when Martial Law was declared on black and white TV (although I have seen the grainy footage dozens of times) but I do remember growing up around my parents' fear of the military and the police. My parents were not even political in any sense of the word - except that my mother marched with thousands of Filipinos when Ninoy Aquino was assasinated. My father started out as a clerk for an airline company and my mother was a public school teacher who taught English and Arts. I was young then but old enough to remember how my mom watched the clock nearing midnight, looking out the window crouched in fear while waiting for my father to get home from doing overtime. There was a national curfew and anybody caught outside after midnight could get in trouble with the "Metrocom," the military police. They never told us anything of course but I remember those moments well.

When I was a 5th grader, I remember asking my parents at the dinner table what "LABAN" meant and how they went silent and looked at each other. I swear - it was a classic "where did she get that idea" moment for my parents and I can still remember how my question stopped the conversation. I was totally intrigued. LABAN in Filipino is literally "fight" but it in the social movement, it also connotes "struggle." In the late seventies and early 80s, it was also the political party of Benigno "Ninoy" Aquino, the late Senator and husband of our former President, the late Corazon Aquino.

I asked because on the way to school that morning, I noticed that posters bearing the word in black letters(not a lot of them) were all over the length of Pedro Gil in Paco, the street where my school, Colegio de la Imaculada Concepcion de la Concordia was. Later that day, they were all gone and you could even see how some of them looked like they might have been quickly ripped off the posts and walls where they were glued on earlier. This made me curious although I was surprised none of my classmates knew (or seemed to care about) what I was talking about when I told them. So I had to ask you see. Not surprisingly my parents spoke to me in hushed tones and simply told me never to say the word again. This made me even more curious. Who did they think could listen in on us at the dinner table? The only other people around were my 8 year old sister and my brothers, aged 5 and 3 and in all probablity, at that time, slobbering their way through dinner. All they told me was that the word was "BAWAL" or prohibited/outlawed and they made me promise never to say it. I found that confusing of course. How could a word be outlawed? I knew it was inappropriate to swear, for instance, but my parents (like many others) did it at times in anger or frustration. I knew the sisters at my school would never tolerate it but there still seemed for me, a totally different reason for not tolerating swearing among children and saying a verb like "Laban" out loud.

By the time I was a freshman in college at the University of the Philippines, Ferdinand Marcos was still in power. At that time, he had been in power for almost twenty years. The social unrest and political opposition to Marcos was also twenty years in the making. On the other hand, the assasination of Senator Benigno Aquino three years earlier literally stoked the fire of social unrest and the otherwise unpolitical middle class, white collar professionals and even the old elites politically and economically marginalized by Marcos and his cronies were starting to mobilize. Makati, the business and financial district (particularly Ugarte field) literally became the "haven" for huge political rallies.

Unlike the throng of working class, peasant and urban poor marchers that the military and police would normally disperse with tear gas, water canons, truncheons and sometimes, bullets without a moment's notice or much second thought, these rallies included motorcades awash with yellow ribbons and yellow confetti (so much of it made out of PLDT* yellow pages)cascading like a torrent of yellow snow and rain from the top floors of the tallest buildings in Makati. It also started including groups of popular musicians, actors, artists and Catholic clergy in full battle gear - that is, in their clerical garb. Tear gas, water canons and truncehons - while still very much in use were becoming less and less of a viable option as the rallies grew to resemble prayer rallies and concerts.

On hindsight that singular event - the assasination of an oppositionist, who despite his committment to social justice was essentially an upper middle class intellectual married to a member of the landed class was not exactly the stuff of the perhaps preferably Marxist-Leninist proletarian-led prophecy nor even the peasant-led revolution of Maoist lore. The grassroots social movement and resistance to military rule was certainly very actively "being fought" in the countrysides but even the aging (the then fifteen year old) left-led "armed resistance" was growing worn and weary. Cadres and sympathizers were still being killed off by the military and para-military units but even within the underground movement, questions were already being raised about the primacy of armed struggle. (Asking this question by the late eighties became even more dangerous when the party leaders initiated a purge but I digress. Maybe another post?)

The phenomenon which was more visible because it was in the city, was not a proletarian revolution (while it certainly included them), nor was it a peasant-led revolution from the countrysides.

Ninoy Aquino's assasination brought an erstwhile quiet housewife and mother, Corazon C. Aquino, into the spotlight. Cory Aquino of the landed Cojuancos of Tarlac, convent bred with backgrounds in Math, Arts and one year in law school, was placed at the center of the mounting popular resistance to dictatorship. You can see why it was in some respects a nightmare for many of the self-proclaimed Marxist-Leninist and Maoist sections of the local social movement.

By the time I joined the Kabataang Makabayan (KM), the "underground" student organization in 1987, the Aquino government was already battling criticism for its proclaimed "total war" against the communist insugency. I was one of many students recuited to join the "militant" League of Filipino Students (LFS) on the day pesants and farmers were shot and killed in Mendiola by police and militia as they conducted a rally asking for Land Reform.

Earlier that day I sat on the asphalt speaking with some of the farmers outside the Department of Agrarian Reform (DAR) before their march to Mendiola, that street leading to Malacanang which has seen many a bloody and violent dispersal. I had decided that I missed too many classes and could not afford to attend this particular rally. We exchanged pleasantries. They said they were very impressed with my background since locally, state university students are usually referred to as "Iskolar ng Bayan." (Scholars of the People)I felt conflicted about not going. At this point of my student activist life, missing major rallies always gave me a sense of missing out. Many undergrads attend parties (no doubt) but I was into rallies, dodging tear gas and water canons. That was my crowd. I was all of sixteen years old.

Its always hard to describe things as they were in the past to the current generation. Many of my students were not yet even born during the famed EDSA people power uprising. While we all color our narratives of past events with our own subjectivities, some of those biases and sympathies are often shared and can resonate with others' sense of history and recollection of past events.

I remember how my kasamas (comrades) student activists cringed whenever I waxed lyrical about what I suspected was Cory Aquino's good intentions as well as the continuing significance of the popularly backed people power uprising. Those were times I felt, I was not only very unpopular, but also derided. It was as if one could not be properly cynical with and critical of the administration's politics (Congress was still dominated - as it is to this day- with the landed elite) without likewise denouncing the people and personalities in government in their totality. In other words, the only way to oppose the state (with a capital "S") was to hate it and all its members totally and to the core. I don't exactly know how I remained in the movement but like many others, I grew sick and tired of it. It was so much like my Roman Catholic background. I got over it - well some ot it. (I'm still into GUILT)

While I still find myself politically left-leaning, I don't blindly support any old self-proclaimed "left" parties or candidates. I don't even know how a lot of them justify their electoral politics (legally or ethically) given what I know about the background of left politics and continuing support for and funding of armed resistance. I have also come to terms with my Roman Catholic background and maintain my respect for many individual Catholics (many of them from the clergy but one of them of course, Corazon Aquino), who despite our clear political differences, have always been decent and compassionate human beings.

A few years ago one of President Aquino's former cabinet appointees disclosed that when Maria Theresa Carlson (the popular 80s actress, a battered wife, who leapt to her death in 2003) once wrote to her, asking for the President's intervention in her marriage. She was married to a long-time traditional politician from the north and she had, in the past, attempted to sever her ties with her husband. Like many battered women, she often found her way back to him and reconciled. According to this former cabinet member, Cory referred her to the bishop of the province. He promptly told her to return to her husband.

Yet we also know how Cory often came to the defense of her daughter, the media superstar, Kris Aquino, despite her very obviously different beliefs about love, life and relationships. Her first openly non-traditional love affair was with a married older actor but the former President doted over her grandson (like she did her other grand children). She was also the protective mother to Kris when she opted to make a very public accusation of violence against another long-time partner, another married former basketball player. To be sure, one can argue its a double standard - Kris is her daughter after all. And maybe it is but I find it a comfort that Cory, no matter how devout a Catholic she was could always make room for uncatholic behavior, even if it was her own daughter.

Relative to the current President, Cory was more respectful of the separation of church and state. Unlike GMA, Cory never went as far as outlawing nor banning contraceptives as the Catholic lobby would have had her done in 1987 after the RC lobby felt it did not get everything it wanted (a total ban on contraception as abortion) in the 1987 Constitution.

Cory Aquino didn't solve the problems of the Philippines after her six-year term. Many argue we were worse off after her term. At the height of Cory's term, globalization was on the rise and the pressure was high to open up the erstwhile protectionist and "nationalist" economies.

I was never a political detainee. I did not have relatives or close freinds kidnapped, jailed, tortured or "salvaged."** But I know a handful of survivors who have allowed me to listen and have shared their experiences. But I still remember the feeling of breathing in freedom for the first time. It was silly really, my memory as a sixteen year-old and realizing that the dictatorship had ended. I even kept a journal (which I no longer have) in which I am sure I blathered incoherently (like I still do now? )

My mum was in the hospital having a gallbladder operation and I was watching over her so I never quite made it to the EDSA uprising. On the third day when my mother told me she was giving me permission to go and join the historic march/rally, we all heard the announcement on the suddenly "free" media: Marcos had fled and we were no longer under a dictatorship. While my hopes to be part of "history" were dashed, I was also elated after all by this time, the revolution was already being televised. BBC in its coverage of Cory's death said it well - "For three days, the world watched as the Filipino people toppled a dictator..."

While the 1987 Constitution is not perfect and while the motley crew of Constitutional commissioners we ended up having may have not been the ideal band of experts, (some of them were truly bigoted and I'm not even complaining about the clergy members) the fact that the Constitution was amended during such a high point in Philippine history and in the overall state of the Filipino people's consciousness, one could argue that the conditions had a huge impact on the character of the provisions, which perhaps even to the then eagerly waiting market economists, was not nearly liberal enough.

One can only hope that when the time comes for us to amend the Constitution, we will not only have better qualified people in the Commission (or Congress in case of a Constituent Assembly), but also compassionate people who are able to respect difference (especially religious ones).
________________________________________
*Philippine Long Distance Telephone Co.
**"Salvaging" is the term used to describe political killings and executions.

Listen up, single ladies

An unlikely conversation on gender through an annoying pop song



I don't have anything against Beyonce Knowles and happen to think she is both very beautiful and talented but the first time I heard her song "Single Ladies," I thought it sucked. How do I explain my almost visceral reaction to having endured the song being played by the hour in almost all public spaces (e.g. public transport, malls, blaring on the street where we live as it blasts from the neighbor's stereo?) The song dominated the local airwaves (as aggressively promoted pop songs usually do)for many months and I have no doubt it will continue being a favorite among many Beyonce fans.

"If you liked it, you should have put a ring on it..." is what irritates the hell out of me in the song. Just in case you are lucky enough not to be familiar with it, here is the link to the lyrics. I'm married and I don't have anything against people wanting to get married but I'm more of a Pink fan and "So What" is my preferred anthem for break ups. Its totally subjective so I guess to each her own.

Like a generation of old fogies who have found their facebook nook, I later chanced upon the SNL clip when the link was posted by a friend. In the sketch, the SNL crew and Beyonce poke fun at the song and MTV with a little help from Justine Timberlake clad in black leotards and matching pumps. I have to admit that I found it funny just like everyone else. I also hadn't seen the original MTV of Beyonce before that so I looked at that before watching the entire SNL spoof, wanting not to miss the punchline.

A couple of days ago I heard about "Single gaydies" themed spoofs and interpretations of the MTV sprouting all over You Tube and the Internet. The most popular here of course is the one by Filipino school boys who do a very good rendition of Beyonce's dance moves. Indeed many Filipinos can dance (and sing) well. There are of course those of us who are the exception more than the rule but I digress...Of course frat boy versions like this one are all over the place, where college boys horse around in hopes of internet stardom? Here is yet another one. They get judged of course (like everybody else who takes the same risk when exposing themselves on these public and social network spaces). Comments on You Tube can range from the truly funny, respectful, cheerful, thoughtful, incomprehensible to the really vicious and downright mean ones. I've made the observation elsewhere before but the anonymity of the internet when coupled with real-time reaction/commentary seems to have given birth a particular breed (and culture) of internet hot-heads who jump in and attack others' views, posts, ideas and appearance without as much as a second thought.

The "gaydies" variety of clips were most exposed to these sort of attacks. Gay bashing, sexist and comments expressing racial hate keep these online public spaces burning. So at one point, I started skipping the comments and just surfed to see the variety of clips on Beyonce's unlikely contribution to a discussion of gender and mind you I said that with a straight face. No sexual orientation pun intended.

No less popular are direct sexist responses to the song addressed to "Single Fellas" admonishing the boys to "smash that ass but to never put a ring on it."

I soon found myself surfing You Tube and discovered a treasure trove of "Single Ladies" spoofs, interpretations and surprisingly brilliant commentary. My favorite is not the one with the most hits but I think its rather well done (with original vocals) and its called "Married ladies." Yes, if there is anybody single ladies ought to listen to when it comes to these things, its the married ladies. Duh. The talented composer/performer of this version is Melanie Fontana who is a musician on MySpace where she has several songs available on-line. Its certifiably "I Laughed My Ass Off" (LMAO) stuff but just maybe its "I laughed my married ass off." Check it out. She redid the entire song's lyrics but the coup de grace to the irritatingly popular ditty comes with:

"When he liked it and I made him put a ring on it...now America's seeing that I don't want it."

Other less profound though no less amusing takes on the MTV go as far as merging clips of Mr. Bean dancing with Ms. Knowles. The result, while certainly meant to be a parody of sex just ends up nowhere near salacious or sexy. Yes, he is pumping his hips upon Ms. Knowles' famously voluptuous behind but its Mr. Bean. As they say: "nuff said."

Perhaps without meaning to, this animated clip most probably created on macromedia flash creates a surprisingly "gender neutral" version of the MTV. It follows the lyrics (quite literally) but all the stick figures look the same and in this stick figure MTV, the usual visual representations of femaleness and maleness are absent. Try to put a ring on that. While you're on it, go figure this out too. All you single puppets. If you liked it then you should have put a string on it? But gender benders are not confined to toons or puppets as this clip proves.

When a dance craze "sweeps a nation," however, its unlikely that it can ever reach the epidemic proportions that it can reach in these here tropical isles. This clip is not so out of the ordinary. In fact it is so ordinary to see preteen and even younger Filipino girls bump, grind and gyrate to the latest pop tunes both in public schools and Catholic run private schools for girls. I have witnessed first graders gyrate to "Its raining men." Hallelujah. But if like me, you have seen "Little Miss Sunshine," it always helps to keep a sense of humor about it. A sense of humor is what these er "grace challenged" boys have. They do their Beyonce inspired ad promoting (of all things) a college ministry!

Now it may not be a pandemic (yet) but here we see why they say Brits got talent too. Sure it has a pitifully low number of hits (compared to Filipino clips) but you gotta admire these ladies for braving the cold in their leotards. Check out the passers by in their frigid weather wear. That tiny UK flag color inspired car pulling out towards the end of the clip was also cute as a button. Very Austin Powers.

Want to see a Barack Obama inspired clip? President Obama who has been quoted saying that he knows how to do the dance, or at least the hand gestures, is parodied here.

In the beginning Beyonce may have intended the song to be some sort of anthem for the single ladies out there but Justin's good humor coupled with the more fluidly gendered generation (Z?) and fandom behind this song (and THE dance because the dance I think is what made the song a hit) made this song an all around anthem for the courageous generation of internet users who are so used to posting clips and pictures of themselves. She called out to all the single ladies but the most overwhelming response Beyonce has gotten is definitely from the gay community. Shane Mercado whose You Tube post was so popular he got to meet Miss Knowles knows this only too well. Even as the lot of these internet denizens risk ridicule, a number of them actually earn their own internet fandom. Say what you will about supermodel figures, pear bottomed girls or stick figures (oh I forgot I said supermodel already) but these clips prove one thing. The Chubby and Cubby can dance.

Doctors and Lawyers

I spoke before a group of health practitioners today. While many of them were nurses and midwives, many more were doctors of obstetrics and gynecology. The topic I was assigned was the reproductive health bill but since the main sponsor of the bill was also an invited speaker, I decided to talk about only one thing in the bill: "conscientious objection." But before I could even begin my short talk, there were medical updates from doctors practicing in the field. Two doctors lectured on medical assistance during labor and new-born screening. Instead of reading my notes or reviewing the bill, I decided to listen. In fact it was not hard not to listen since the lectures were very accessible and quite interesting. The two doctors knew they would be addressing health practitioners with different roles in the health care system and varying levels of health education and training. So since I did not come prepared with a written speech or lecture save for some notes I made last night about the ethical guidelines on conscientious objection, I took a moment to reflect about the similarities and differences between doctors and lawyers.

Number #1 Similarity: If we were to go by the popularity of soap operas and TV shows, people have always been fascinated with the lives of doctors and lawyers. Like everyone else doctors and lawyers have failed marriages, dysfunctional families, steamy affairs and although perhaps to a lesser degree, money problems. But people seem to think the lives of ordinary doctors and lawyers make great prime time TV fare. This may be partly because doctors and lawyers are powerful professionals and gatekeepers. Both often wield power over their patients and clients.

Perhaps another reason why doctors and lawyers or at least their professions seem to be regarded in high esteem, is because their professions relate to a lot of the things we value - justice, liberty, autonomy, and well-being. Certainly not all doctors and perhaps even fewer lawyers, are "good guys," and working to promote and protect those ideals. But in their professional and technical capacities, and in the context of the highest ideals reflected in each profession's codes of ethics, they can actually be a great source of good.

Number #1 Difference (and this I observed from having attended the forum). Doctors are more used to working in tandem with a set of others on a collegial basis. Arguably lawyers do have law partnerships and justices in appellate courts are a collegial body. However, in huge part, recognition in legal practice is usually more individualist and focused on the lone legal practitioner. This is even more apparent in litigation, which is primarily adversarial.

I did note, however, that in terms of engaging the abstract principles of the professions and applying them to concrete cases, the current state of medical ethics (esp. obstetrics and gynecology) are far more advanced than our sadly archaic legal canons of professional and judicial responsibility. (I am referring to FIGO guidelines for the most part) On one hand, this could very well be a consequence of the advances in medical technology. New technology always raises new medical and ethical issues. On the other hand, some of the issues like conscientious objection are not exactly new but rather it is the way they have been invoked in the context of health practice that has led to new ethical questions in the context of health care.

In legal parlance, "conscientious objection" traces its roots in dissent against war. In moral philosophy, invoking conscience is at the core of the freedom of thought. But while conscience has usually been invoked in particular relation to the exercise of the freedom of religious practice and religious beliefs, invoking conscience is by no means an exclusively religiously based notion. The notion of having a conscience is embedded in the notion of human beings having the faculty (or capacity) of rational thought (reason). Yet rather than debate about the specifics of rational thought (the seat of reason, judgement), I’d rather talk about the more mundane question of what enables rational thought and thereby facilitates the exercise of conscience. As embodied humans in an imperfect society, the very things that enable rational thought and agency often come at a price. (And no, I’m not talking about a Kindle 2 or even a an imac pro)

In rather plain and simple terms, basic needs facilitate and enable rational thought. We are bodies after all and while we do not live by bread alone, the basic stuff including some education (language and communication), goes a long, long way. On the other hand, having more than enough (food and education) does not necessarily induce brilliance either. Many of the most prolific thinkers and authors were paupers in their day. (Some even produced their best work in prison). The point is, one's capacity to will, deliberate or exercise conscience is contingent on a myriad of things, not the least of which is a material basis. In order to think and decide freely, however, information must also be available or accessible. And whether censorship takes place by virtue of totalitarian state policies or by self censorship induced by narrow biases (religiously based or otherwise), the absence of information hinders the formation of understanding. Incomplete information makes deliberation an impossibility.

Corruption as an issue of Welfare and Social Justice

“Corruption denies the poor their fair share, and reinforces the gender and social gaps, because corrupt payments are made in exchange for breaking rules of fairness in employment, justice, and procurement." Renaud Meyer, Country Director United Nations Development Programme (UNDP)

Last week I listened to a series of lectures about Budget Reform Advocacy. On the surface, and just from its title and the fact that it took place in the College of Law at the University of the Philippines (where I teach and graduated from), it did not really seem like the lectures held much promise in terms of generating popular interest. This is not to say the forum was in any way lacking in high caliber guests and speakers. On the contrary, the panelists were all luminaries and experts in their field led by Prof. Leonor Briones of the College of Public Administration, Dean Marvic leonen of the College of Law and Rep. Teofisto Guingona III, sponsor of several bills on budget reform.

When I read the UNDP's statement today about the worsening corruption in Philippine government, I realized what the Budget Reform Advocacy forum lacked: a popular medium. At the forum they graciously handed out a half an inch thick packet of handouts from the lecture presentations.

Rep Guingona's lecture revealed how gaps in the Budget process are actually being used to facilitate the Executive's corrupt practices - legally. These three processes are simple, straightforward and standard parts of the budgetary process. Under the Arroyo administration, however, they became the means to exercise (and abuse) the power of the purse.

The first process is impoundment which refers to the Executive's power to defer or altogether restrict the release or expenditure of an otherwise approved budget item. Unspent amounts in the approved budget become savings and when they turn into savings, the executive has the power to re-align the same amount for other purposes in its power to augment the budget.

As Dean Leonen pointed out, unlike the Judiciary which is retrospective in its exercise of its mandate of adjudicating justice, Congress is farsighted because its acts require it to envision rules which can apply for a long period of time. The Executive, however, has to be both for it has to prepare for every contingency.

The point is, impoundment is not necessarily a bad thing and while enacting limits to this power can address key issues such as preventing abuse, we have to be careful about basing our proposals for legislative reform on the performance of one administration.

Rep Guingona did know how to catch the attention of the predominantly UP crowd. One of his examples of how the Arroyo administration abused the power to impound concerned the UP's alleged 1.3 billion savings in 2007. Then Vice President for Finance Florendo was even quoted as saying that he did not know such an amount existed. Apparently available in the 2007 budget, the Department of Budget and Management never gave the UP notice about the same budget and unspent, it turned into savings available to the Executive to spend for whatever purposes it determined.

Guingona's bill introduces a limit to the Executive's powers by requiring Congressional permission for using the budget for other than its intended and original purpose. He pointed out that the "non-impoundment provision" in the general Appropriations Act subjects the President to the rules and regulations of the DBM, an agency under her control.

Another part of the budgetary process Guingona claims the administration has abused and benefited from is the re-enactment of a budget. By their character, re-enacted budgets are supposed to address any failure or delay in the process of passing a budget by automatically adopting the previous year's budget in order to prevent government services and offices coming to a grinding halt.

Here, Guingona pointed out two ways the administration has abused the process, 1) jacking up "savings" by taking advantage of fully paid allocations from the previous year's budget (e.g. infrastructure that has already been paid for) and 2) exercising power over two budgets. And this is where it got even sleazier. As it turns out, there were re-enacted budgets in 2001, 2004 and 2006, years preceding elections.

In 2005 and 2007, the savings corresponded to 17.36 and 16.31 percent respectively of the total budget. Any accountant or auditor will tell you that when it comes to budgeting and planning, unspent amounts or savings are not a "good thing" because they reflect ineptness in the planning and utilization process. Savings here take on a whole other set of meanings because they do not arise out of wise spending or belt tightening measures that eliminate extravagance or unnecessary expenses.

In fact, Guingona pointed out that in 2007, the Philippine Institute for development noted that the government was underfunding the Philippine commitments to the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) by as much as 95 billion pesos. In the same year, because it preceded a re-enacted budget, the government had 106 billion in "savings." But of course, it gets worse.

While re-enacted budgets are supposed to be temporary, Guingona revealed how the administration has, over the last few years managed to spend the entire re-enacted budget within the first few months of the year before the incoming budget kicked in and was spent all over again. (I know. She did what and how?)

According to former DBM Secretary Emy Boncodin, between January to March 2006, the Executive (through the President) had already spent 37 billion above the legally authorized amount having spent the entire re-enacted budget before the new one kicked in by April. When the new budget kicked in, the amount was spent (without off-setting the previous amounts) all over again.

In his bill, Guingona proposes measures such as limiting re-enacted budgets to essential items, off-setting already released funds and controlling the release of the re-enacted budget on a monthly basis or only 1/12th of the amount.

Needless to say, the the best (or worst) example of how a re-enacted budget was literally plundered is no joke. This is how, Guingona noted, Joc-Joc Bolante was able to take out 1.83 billion in one week in February, within 90 days of the 2004 elections. The amount released to Bolante (in 2 tranches over a week in the second month of 2004) represented over 76% of the total budgetary item it was taken from.

Of course Guingona's revelations would not have been as damning (even if they already established the pattern) of the Arroyo administration's corruption if it did not get corroborated by no less than those who served in the Executive. Former Dep Ed Budget Undersecretary, Luz added that "re-enacted budgets hurt the Dep Ed the most" because the first quarter of the year is also the last quarter of the academic year. He pointed out that while the DBM practice of only releasing 75% of maintenance and operation expenditures is premised on leaving the remaining 25% for later release (at year end) the same has actually been used an excuse to generate "savings." He noted that in the case of re-enacted budgets, the DBM usually refuses to release the remaining 75% to the Dep Ed because the amount pertains to the first quarter which is over anyway.

Luz also pointed out how both the fiscal year and academic year of Dep Ed differs and necessitates multi-year planning. He added that one negative effect of decentralization has been to merely transfer the locus of "corruption" to Division offices which are "awash with cash" because the direct release system only applies to high schools and not elementary schools. Talk about stealing candy from babies.

Unfortunately I could not stay long enough to listen to the rest of the panelists including a representative from the Department of Health (DOH), my favorite department to pick on.

Prof. Briones(who also convenes Social watch Philippines) characterized the budget as "the most powerful public articulation of the fiscal policy of a country." She added that the budget process cannot (and should not) be isolated from the political process of citizens' participation and that "the formulation of fiscal policy is at the dead center of democratic government." (Herring)

I would add, however, that as far as political processes go, engaging the fiscal process (the budget) remains at the top of the list of perhaps the most technical, making it the least accessible to the public for participation. On the other hand, it is not really impossible to study and to engage the budget process (or popularize), given that experts from the academe and other professions can actually unite with basic sectors to do this. Unlike the "vote" which often reduces us into individual ballots and voting blocs, effective budget advocacy has to be multi-sectoral and interdisciplinary.

I have my own continuing issues with traditional economics and the tendency to reduce concepts like "public goods" and "welfare" into monetary or economic distributive terms but such differences are expected in the realm of politics where citizens contribute to shape a vision (and hopefully a real plan to reach) their "common good."

Obama makes it cool to care again

Many have called it historic and everybody points out how the inauguration of America's first African American President is a landmark in US politics. I certainly don't discount the political significance and the culturally symbolic importance of Obama's rise to the US Presidency for the issues of race and ethnicity or even democracy. But Barack Obama has come to represent so much more because of the sense of hope and optimism he managed to inspire in US politics.

My own take on it is that Obama just made it cool to care again.

(Hopefully it'll be catching and the rest of the world will be infected soon.)

It won't be easy and in a few weeks, months or even within days, hope can start running out and everyone can decide to go back to the same sense of desolation that once hung heavily over US politics. It could happen over the next four years or within the next few days. But there is also hope that that won't happen. The truly amazing thing is that for once it does seem that the American people (at least a lot of them) have a sense that it does depend on them (and with them working with the rest of the world)and not only on Barack Obama. The media probably has the most to learn about this because it does continue to make it appear like all of the problems of America (and the world) will be Obama's alone to solve. (At this point it seems only the Daily show makes this point in jest or the reference to Obama as "the messiah" tongue in cheek).

I must say he didn't disappoint and his speech contained just the right doses of reality with generous amounts of hopefulness and inspiration he is after all known for. He made an appeal to old values of trust, honesty, loyalty and patriotism without neglecting to be inclusive. Obama's message of inclusion on one hand honored diversity and on the other hand, emphasized unity in the common good.

If you think about it, all those things Obama appeals to and refers to are also the self same values invoked by every other politician in America who came before him (freedom, prosperity, decency etc.) But what makes Obama's message hopeful and truly different is that he invokes those values not to exclude but to include. He does not avoid difference (racial, religious or otherwise) but confronts it and challenges everybody to think and act for a good beyond themselves. (He's almost like an American Ghandi.)

Resisting Religious Imposition: Catholic Fundamentalisms in the Philippines

Many Catholic churches all over the Philippines currently display huge, towering banners with a dark and sinister, hooded figure carrying a child. The frightening image proclaims an even more frightening message: to oppose the bill on Reproductive Health (RH). While there are no new battle lines here (the church’s stand against contraception turned forty this year), it is the intensity of the attacks by the church against views and beliefs, different from its own that has reached new heights.

According to recent polls, majority of Roman Catholic Filipinos still think that modern family planning methods ought to be made available by government, to those who want to use them. Sixty-eight percent of a representative sample agreed that a law should provide for family planning services and 54 percent do not agree that providing sexuality education in schools will influence the youth to be sexually promiscuous, confirming the result of earlier surveys. Filipino Catholics are no different from majority of Catholics all over the world who approve of the use of contraception for family planning, in spite of the Catholic Church prohibition against it.

Despite the popular sentiment many elected officials do not want to cross the Catholic hierarchy. Congress took nine years (in its last three terms) in getting the bill to the last stages of sponsorship. While the bill’s chances of passing Congress this year are actually better than ever, President Arroyo has threatened to veto the bill. Many believe that Arroyo’s Roman Catholic views (and refusal to fund family modern planning methods) are more likely political convenience than religiously-based reasons in the face of her admission that she also used pills.

Advocates usually invoke the separation of church and state and mostly tell the church to keep out of state affairs or secular matters. But we ought to remember that the separation of church and state is only the means and not an end by itself. The values of pluralism, non-imposition and protecting the minority from the majority are the very stuff of religious freedom and free exercise, and sexual and reproductive rights advocates need to start talking more about these values. ”

Shutting religion out of the debate only reifies the position of religious authorities (usually the most vocal) as the singular view within a religious tradition and fails to highlight the diversity of views within and among religious traditions.

NGOs are engaging Roman Catholicism by emphasizing the diversity of Catholic views. In 2003, Womenlead Foundation, Inc. initiated a forum where women of different faiths talked about the struggles within religions for the recognition of women’s human rights; Health Action Initiatives Network (HAIN) has been organizing Roman Catholics in the local reproductive health movement and conducting Religion, Gender and Sexuality Training programs; Linangan ng Kababaihan (LIKHAAN) has staged a play which engages the influence of Roman Catholic views on women’s decisions to have abortions.

Framers of the debate (advocates and media) have yet to catch up with this approach. Many still refer to the bill as a population control measure, summing up the conflict as a clash between the state population control agenda and the Catholic Church, failing to note the framework of rights behind the measure. (A recently completed media study on framing the population/RH issue by the Ateneo School of Government makes a similar observation.) While demographic goals for the State indeed existed under the 1973 Constitution, they were scrapped in 1987 in favour of provisions more consistent with rights frameworks.

Secularism Threatened

Secularist ideas of the state took root in the movements against Spanish colonization. The Philippine Constitution draws its clauses on religious freedom, non-establishment and the separation of church from the US Bill of Rights but the earliest articulation of religious freedom and the separation of church and state by the revolutionary movements emphasized “liberty and the equality of all religions,” premised on a plurality of beliefs.

When the Church invokes its opposition to an imagined “state imposition” of a population control agenda, it downplays the conflict of beliefs around contraception because other Christian churches through position papers, and Muslims by way of a fatwa have supported the bill.

Frances Kissling defines fundamentalisms as “reactive movements within religion that base their values and positions on literal interpretations of religious texts.” She notes that fundamentalists either withdraw from the world or attempt to enforce their beliefs on everyone and that “fundamentalism exists within all religions.” Lynn Freedman also points out that “law” and the “state” occupy a central place in virtually all fundamentalist projects where both law and religious authority is sacralised and considered absolute.

Freedman adds that religion is not synonymous with religious authorities or institutions and individuals who use religion to legitimate their political ambition. This cautions us to be careful about using “fundamentalist” to describe or label all conservative or religious views. In the context of sexual and reproductive rights, not all conservative views about sex necessarily stem from fundamentalist beliefs.

Framing Resistance

Persistently, the Catholic Church in the Philippines has labelled RH as abortion and thereby whips up moral panic in Congress, bringing all public debate and discussion to a grinding halt. While advocates remain divided on the issue of legalizing abortion, the RH bill does not really propose the legalization of abortion. A standard of humane treatment for those who undergo post abortion care is as far as the bill goes. Advocates explaining how the Church’s “accusation” of legalizing abortion is misleading fall into the danger of reinforcing the moral panic around abortion. Beyond issuing a “disclaimer,” opening up the conversation on abortion remains important considering that rates of clandestine abortions and maternal deaths in the Philippines remain alarmingly high.A purportedly Pro-Life position advocating penal sanctions for women who undergo abortion is no longer considered a morally defensible position - let alone one that promotes life. Consensus that abortion bans do not result in fewer abortions but mainly lead to clandestine and unsafe abortions is growing and supported by empirical evidence.

During the 1987 Constitutional convention, feminists avoided controversial issues like divorce and abortion but the Catholic Church lobbied to insert a provision recognizing the “right to life” of a fertilized ovum. By the end of the Constitutional Convention, the final provision read: “The State shall equally protect the mother and the unborn from conception.”

Despite the reference to “conception” however, the Philippine Constitutional Commission** never agreed on a categorical definition of conception and believed that to do so would run counter to the Constitution’s non-establishment clause and violate the essence of the bill of rights which “ensures the protection of the minority from the majority.” By refusing to treat the legal discourse on conception (and abortion) in absolutist terms, the framers of the 1987 Constitution showed us a braver and more respectful way to move forward.

References:

The Humanae Vitae, Encyclicals issued by Pope Paul VI in 1968

Maureen S. Maquiddang, “Majority of Filipinos want law on contraceptives – SWS,” October 15, 2008, Newsbreak/abs-cbnnews.com

A World View, Catholic Attitudes on Sexual Behavior and Reproductive Health, Catholics for Free Choice, 2004.

Marites N. Sison, “Arroyo used Pills but is against Birth Control,” 12-13 March 2008 Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.

Carolina S. Ruiz Austria, “Secular Rights and Monopolies of Morality: Reframing the Legal Discourse of Abortion in the Philippines,” LLM Thesis, Master of Laws, Faculty of Law, University of Toronto (2008).

Interview with Frances Kissling by Cassandra Balchin, AWID (2008)

Lynn P. Freedman, “The Challenge of Fundamentalisms,” Reproductive Health Matters, Vol.8, November 1996.

Allan Guttmacher Institute and University of the Philippines Population Institute
(2005)

Rebecca J. Cook and Bernard M. Dickens, “Human Rights Dynamics of Abortion Law Reform,”Human Rights Quarterly, 25 Johns Hopkins University Press, (2003)

Mercedes L. Fabros, Aileen Paguntalan, et.al., “From Sanas to Dapat: Negotiating Entitlement in Reproductive Decision Making in the Philippines,” Negotiating Reproductive Rights, Women’s Perspectives Across Countries, Rosalind Petchesky and Karen Judd, Eds., International Reproductive Rights Research Action Group (IRRAG),
New York: Zed Books, 1998)

**The Romulo amendment which was unanimously adopted (30-0) reflects this consensus: “The reasons for my amendment are as follows: First, I do not believe this original sentence belongs to the Article on the Bill of Rights. It is not only jarring but also contradictory to the main purpose of a bill of rights. The Bill of Rights is supposed to protect the individual from the state and the minority from the majority. This original proposal impinges on the right of the minorities who do not believe in this Catholic concept. Thus, I think it is less objectionable and will accomplish the same purpose, if we transpose it to another article in the way that I have suggested.” (July 18, 1986 Record of the Constitutional Commission, Volume One p. 721-722)

Milking the Issue: The Market Wars

As I write this post, the Philippine Bureau of Food and Drugs (BFAD) has not yet posted any results of its product tests on milk (and other food products) suspected of contaning melamine. But it has, however, withdrawn four milk brands from testing.

Melamine, a synthetic polymer is primarily used as a flame retardant and resin for furniture, tiles, fabrics and plastics. It is highly toxic and even if it is supposed to raise the "protein" content of milk (and other food products) during testing, it is not water soluble and has to be mixed with formaldehyde or another organic solvent before it can be dissolved in milk. For this reason, experts have raised doubts about the possibility of the melamine being added to the milk by farmers.

What seems more likely though is that the melamine is in the feed (corn glutten, cottonseed meal) that farmers use to raise their cows with. Last year's massive petfood recall (mainly in North America) was also linked to melamine contamination. Majority of the recalled foods came from a single source, Menu Foods of Streetsville, Ontario Canada which bought its wheat gluten (you guessed it) from China. Of course as far as the pet owners are concerned, Menu Foods, the Canadian company is still responsible. In 2007, Menu faced about 90 lawsuits for petfood related deaths.

Likewise the 2004 pet deaths from contaminated petfoods that took place earlier in parts of Asia, was also later categorized as similar to the 2007 incident. The culprit was also melamine.

What seems strange though (at least to little old unscientific me) is that the "science" around the toxicity of melamine to humans (when taken from animals who have been exposed to it) is something of a puzzle. According to the United States Food and Drugs Administration (in 2007), "there is very low risk to human health from hogs and chickens known to have been fed animal feed supplemented with pet food scraps that contain melamine and malamine related compounds."

If the meat from animals fed with melamine is supposed to be relatively harmless, how is milk different? (Is it because it is from China?) According to a French scientific journal, melamine is also a chemical byproduct of some common pesticides. So imagine that. Melamine, as it turns out does not only get added to the feed to boost protein content but is present on crops by virtue of the chemicals sprayed on them (e.g. wheat) over a period of time!

My own take on this melamine business (and from what I have read about its toxicity in a couple of scientific articles) is that it is not supposed to be in our food in the first place. While I certainly am not taking sides here (in this case, China's), the entire process of food recalls, bans and not to mention, the free ride "non-China made" products are getting from this issue, leads us nowhere near addressing food safety if we don't go further than point a finger at one of the culprits. Indeed, where are the rest?

As far as the issue of food safety (and sustainability) goes, we ought to be asking where our food comes from and how it is made/grown. Melamine in milk is only the beginning.

More on the the politics of milk in a past blogpost.

Watch The Meatrix for an entertaining beginner's look into the global food industry.

Vegans advocate dumping dairy products from your diet altogether. See MILKSUCKS.com

A study has linked MILK consumption to prostate cancer.

Also see Robert Cohen's book entitled "Milk the Deadly Poison."