On Distant Shore

A Looming National Disaster

2008-05-08T16:22:00.000-07:00

By Val G. Abelgas

May 5,2008

The recent food riots in Somalia and Haiti should prompt the administration of Gloria Mapacagal Arroyo to take a second, hard look at the economic problems confronting the country. Arroyo may have survived all the political crises spurred by a series of corruption scandals in her seven years in office, but she will have difficulty facing the wrath of an angry and hungry people.

Sen. Edgardo Angara, a hesitant ally, but an ally nevertheless, was right in warning that the global food crisis that has triggered worldwide protests can also destabilize the Arroyo administration. Another ally and trusted adviser, Albay Gov. Joey Salceda, in warning that the country is in for a long rice deficit, said the government was not tackling the problem with long-term strategic policies, but rather with “tactical tools like throwing money at the problem.”

Salceda was obviously referring to a P43.7-billion agricultural stimulus package announced by Arroyo after an emergency food summit last month, wherein billions of pesos would be poured on irrigation, fertilizer, hybrid seeds, etc. to boost agriculture production, particularly of rice.

An economic professor from the University of the Philippines, Ernesto M. Pernia, also found this approach wanting, as he reminded the government that the food crisis is not just a supply problem, but also a demand problem. Pernia insists that as the government moves to boost productivity to improve production of rice and other food supplies, it must also tackle the demand side of the problem, meaning the rapid population growth in the country.

To explain his point, Pernia pointed out that the Philippines was among the first countries in Asia to initiate a population policy and a family planning program. Unfortunately, he said, the Philippines failed to sustain what it began, apparently due to pressures from the Roman Catholic Church. By contrast, he noted, Thailand followed the Philippines’ lead in the 1970s and sustained the effort with vigor.

What ensued, Pernia correctly pointed out, has been a tale of diverging twins. In 1970s, the Philippines’ population was about 37 million, almost the same as that of Thailand, with almost identical annual growth rate of 3.0 percent. By 2007, the Philippines’ growth rate was still at 2.04 percent while that of Thailand was 0.9 percent. The Filipinos now number close to 90 million, while Thais number just 66 million, or a difference of 24 million, which is nearly the total population of Malaysia.

If the Philippines, Pernia said, had sustained its population policy and family planning program with the same vigor as Thailand, its annual rice consumption today would only be about 13 million metric tons, instead of 18 million. With annual domestic rice production of 16 million, the country would have been a net exporter of 3 million metric tons. Instead, the Philippines is now the biggest rice importer of over 2 million metric tons. Simple and sensible arithmetic!

The bottom line is that the government now has to look at the problem in a bigger perspective, just like what Thailand did. Wasn’t it just a few decades ago when Thailand was sending its students to study agriculture in the Los Banos-based International Rice Research Institute?
Now, it has emerged not only as one of the biggest rice exporters in the world, but also as one of the emerging economic tigers of Asia, while the Philippines has become the world’s biggest rice importers and the economic laggard of Asia.

The problem with our leaders is that their first reaction to a crisis is to set aside billions of pesos, where they can dip their hands in. Remember the P720-million fertilizer fund, the P2.46-billion swine program, the P3-billion irrigation fund, and God knows what other scandals will surface? Where did all the money go? If they were spent where they should have been spent, maybe the Philippines wouldn’t have to go through this food crisis despite the rise in population. And now, they have the temerity to set aside P43 billion more without as much as a research and study?

In contrast, what will the country’s leaders and politicians get out of a sensible population program, but the ire of the Catholic bishops?

The Filipino people is already reeling from the loss of their purchasing power because of the devalued remittances brought about by the drop in the value of the dollar. Add to this the unabated rise in the prices of oil, rice and other food items, electricity, water and other utilities, transportation, the cost of mortgage and renting, the rising unemployment rate, the rapid population growth, the numerous political scandals that have eroded the people’s trust in government, the unabated graft and corruption, an abusive and corrupt military, the rising poverty, and you have the perfect recipe for a national disaster.

And all Arroyo can tell us is “There is no crisis.”

valabelgas@aol.com

The Folly of Federalism

2008-04-29T13:39:00.000-07:00

By Val G. Abelgas

April 28, 2008

On several issues, I have opposed Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez and sided with Sen. Aquilino Pimentel Jr. On the issue of federalism, however, I must side with the justice secretary and oppose the distinguished senator from Cagayan de Oro.

Pimentel has raised anew the need to shift to a federal system of government for the Philippines from the present unitary system. He filed a Senate resolution that would seek the convening of Congress as a constituent assembly to make amendments to the Constitution, particularly in the shift to a federal system. Gonzalez, on the other hand, warned that the federalization of the country could break the country apart.

Sixteen senators so far have signed Pimentel’s resolution, and although Malacanang insists that economic growth is its priority at this time, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo cannot escape the fact that she pushed for federalism in her last State-of-the-Nation Address, although I suspected then, as I do now, that her support for a federated Philippines is a trick to lure the opposition members, such as Pimentel, to agree to a constitutional change (cha-cha) where she can push again for a parliamentary form of government and hopefully stay in power beyond 2010.

What is federalism? Will federalism solve most of the country’s ills and make it a more peaceful and more progressive country? Is the Philippines ready for it?

Federalism is generally defined as a system of government in which the power is divided between a central authority and constituent political units. Wikipedia defines it as a system of government in which sovereignty is constitutionally divided between a central governing authority and constituent political units (like states or provinces). Federalism is the system in which the power to govern is shared between the national and state governments, creating what is often called a federation.

Under Pimentel’s proposal, there will be 11 states to compose the proposed Federal Republic of the Philippines, as follows: Metro Manila, Northern Luzon, Central Luzon, Southern Tagalog, Bicol, Eastern Visayas, Western Visayas, Central Visayas, Northern Mindanao, Southern Mindanao, and Bangsa Moro Federated States.

Pimentel said senators would no longer be elected on a nationwide basis. Instead, based on Senate Resolution No. 10 filed by Pimentel, each of the 11 proposed federal states would elect six senators while overseas Filipinos would elect nine senators to represent them. The resolution retains the legislative districts in the House of Representatives as well as party-list members.

What are some of the advantages of having a federal government, instead of the present unitary form? Here are some offered by its proponents: (1) It ensures that the government remains close to the people because the state government can argue that they are more in tune with the daily needs and aspirations of the people. (2) It encourages development of the nation in a decentralized and regional manner and allows for unique and innovative methods for attacking social, economic and political problems. (3) It provides a barrier to the dominance of the majority, such as the Tagalogs.

The disadvantages, on the other hand, according to opponents, are the following: (1) It can lead to duplication of government and inefficient, over-lapping or contradictory policies in different parts of the country. (2) It can lead to inequality between the states that could lead to rivalry between them. (3) It can lead to over-government that could result in more corruption.

I can offer a few more.

It will further strengthen political dynasties. There is no denying that established political clans have been in control of local politics for generations. With greater powers under a federal set-up, what will stop them from further solidifying their hold on Philippine politics? A regional, instead of national elections for senators, would put more of these political dynasties at the national helm by being elected to the Senate.

It will turn senatorial elections into local elections, therefore leaving behind national issues during campaigns. We all know that the reason Arroyo still controls the House is because local elections are usually limited to local issues, and the Senate is not under Arroyo’s control because the incompetence, corruption and bankruptcy of the national government under Arroyo were the central issues.

It will create little fiefdoms. Imagine these political clans enjoying almost sovereign power over their regional kingdoms, and we all know that absolute power corrupts absolutely.

It will create additional layers of bureaucracy that will lead to even more red tape, corruption and confusion. Businessmen and investors will be the most adversely affected as they will have to contend with conflicting and confusing laws from various states/regions. Can you imagine 11 states with their own agencies on commerce and industry, housing, health, transportation, education, etc. and the federal government having its own, too, all with their own sets of rules?
It will create a bigger and more rapacious Senate and House of Representatives. Twenty-four senators elected nationally and 240 congressmen can’t get their acts together, how much more can a Senate with 75 regionally elected senators and a House with 350 congressmen who all feel they come from a different republic?

It will create an uneven distribution of wealth and uneven economic growth as states or regions with lesser resources will lag even farther behind. Statistics show that three regions – Metro Manila, Southern Luzon and Central Luzon – account for about 70% of the total manufacturing output of the country. These areas also account for a big chunk of business and employment and, therefore, get a big chunk of taxes, while areas like Eastern Visayas and Northern Mindanao will be lagging behind because of poor revenues. Thus, regions that have been performing well under the current set-up will become even more progressive because of better opportunities and resources, while the less-performing regions will remain stagnant.

It will create unnecessary rivalries and conflicts among regions as regional or state laws could conflict with neighboring regions or states, and cause regional tensions that would be harmful to the general well-being of the country and the people. These tensions, if left unresolved by a weakened federal government can easily escalate into civil war or a secession movement, which federalism is seeking to solve in Mindanao.

Is the Philippines ready for federalism? With the kind of leaders and politicians the country has, it isn’t even ready to move forward, how can else it be ready for an entirely different set-up? Will federalism eliminate, or even minimize corruption or dirty politics, which are the root causes of the country’s problem? I don’ think so. On the contrary, I think a system with 11 separate fiefdoms will propagate corruption and dirty politics even more.

Instead of breaking up the country, the Philippines’ leaders should emphasize oneness, unity and cohesion. They should stress what is common among Filipinos as a people, not what are different among them as peoples of various regions and tribes.

What the country needs is a strong and sincere national leadership, not a weakened federal government. All the national government has to do is implement and enforce existing laws to the letter, eliminate graft and corruption, dismantle political dynasties and throw out dirty politics by introducing electoral reforms.

It took the United States generations before its federal government became successful. For decades, differences on taxation and the issue of slavery among states divided the country, and these eventually led to a disastrous civil war in the 1860s. The US had strong and sincere federal leaders, the Philippines does not. Will the Philippines survive such a civil war and frequent regional conflicts? Or will the new federal government collapse under the weight of such conflicts just like the Soviet Union?

I don’t think I would like to see my country broken up into little republics. Do you?

(valabelgas@aol.com)

Population and Poverty

2008-04-24T14:46:00.000-07:00

By Val G. Abelgas
April 21, 2008

The National Economic Development Authority (NEDA) couldn’t have found a better time to announce that the Philippine population has ballooned to 88.57 million as of August last year, 15.8 percent more than the 76.50 million in May 2000. This, according to NEDA chief Augusto Santos, reflects an annual growth rate of 2.04 percent from 2000 to 2007.

The announcement was made amid the growing alarm over a global food crisis, an impending Asian rice crisis and astronomical rise in food prices. Perhaps the current rice crisis and spiraling food prices would put the announcement on the rising population in a better perspective.

Santos boasted that although the country narrowly missed the 1.95-percent growth rate target, it was close. Santos, of course, didn’t tell us that the 2.34-percent growth rate from 1999 to 2000 meant an increase of 1.8 million people, while a 2.04-percent increase from 2008 to 2009 would mean 2.12 million additional Filipinos by next year.

Presuming that the country maintains its 2.04-percent growth rate, the Philippines will break the 100-million mark in five years! In any language, this number is astronomical and alarming for a country that is just slightly larger than Arizona (population: 6.16 million) and where close to 40% of the population are languishing below the poverty level.

While most of the Philippines’ neighbors have drastically reduced their population growth rate, the Philippines continues to have an alarming population growth rate. Vietnam had an average annual growth rate of 1.4 percent from 2001 to 2006; Indonesia, 1.3 percent; and Thailand, 0.8 percent. Malaysia has about the same growth rate as the Philippines at 2.1 percent from 2001 to 2006.

In 2004, the Philippines was already the 14th most populous country in the world while Metro Manila is the 11th most populous metropolis.

The current population growth rate of 2.04 percent annually is way ahead of the average 1.4-percent growth in per capita gross national product (GNP).

At this rate, population will double in about 35 years while per capita GNP would take about 50 years to double. There had been years when population growth had even outstripped growth in gross domestic product (GDP). Economic managers have pinpointed the rapid population growth as one of the biggest threats to sustainable economic growth.

Imagine this: 80 million people living in one of the poorest economies in Asia; one of the highest population growth rates in one of the lowest economic growth rates in the region; one of the fastest growing employable population in one of the highest unemployment rates in Asia. The result: a big percentage of the population living below the poverty level; millions of people fighting for limited resources and limited jobs; millions of people needing vital public services that a government running on a huge budget deficit can hardly provide.

Instead of confronting the population issue squarely, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, bowing to the pressures of the Roman Catholic Church, even suspended the country’s population control programs in 2004 and has steadfastly refused to resume the programs.

Santos said that despite the alarming population increase, the government has no plans of changing its population policy. Whether he was saying it matter-of-factly or in exasperation is beyond me.

Arroyo, echoing the stand of the influential Roman Catholic Church, has resisted the use of contraceptives and other forms of birth control other than natural methods.

At present, economic managers don't see any light at the end of the tunnel unless the Roman Catholic Church reconsiders its stand against any form of birth control. While it is understandable that the Church would oppose any artificial means of contraception, the Church should at least consider explaining to the people that in the present economic reality, it would be to their benefit if they had smaller families.

In 2005, a group of legislators belonging to the Philippine Legislators Committee on Population and Development (PLCPD) challenged established Church policy of opposing any kind of population control. The group filed the Responsible Parenthood and Population Management Act of 2005, orherwise known as House Bill 3773.

The group included Senators Juan Flavier, a devout Christian; Manuel Roxas III and Edgardo Angara, and Representatives Jose Salceda (one of Arroyo’s most trusted economic advisers and now Albay governor), Loretta Ann Rosales, Satur Ocampo, Teodoro Locsin Jr., Agapito Aquino, Darlene Antonino-Custodio, Gilbert Remulla, Imee Marcos (now Ilocos Norte governor), and, of course, Edcel Lagman, who jolted the political community a year earlier by filing a controversial bill advocating a “two-children policy” for the country.

The PLCPD said HB 3773 would help curb rapid population growth and, at the same time, help resolve or lessen maternal health problems by providing full access to adequate and relevant information and services on reproductive health, protecting and promoting the right of women to control their own fertility, and guaranteeing that adolescents are given age-specific education on reproductive health, including sexuality.

In simpler terms, the bill would implement a population control program through a massive information campaign, making available family planning methods and medicine, and sex education for growing adolescents. The group made it clear that the bill would not legalize nor encourage abortion, which is prohibited by the Philippine Constitution and is considered under a crime under the Revised Penal Code.

Apparently, the bill died a natural death in Congress, because there has been no mention of the proposed measure since.

Dr. J. Mayone Stycos, an expert in population issues, said there are two approaches to population control: family planning and population planning. In an essay on China’s population policy, Stycos said unlike China, which preferred population planning, where couples are induced to have the number of children the government wants them to have, Western nations prefer family planning, where the couples decide the number of children they want, and the government helps them to achieve that number.

Obviously, the Philippines is nowhere in between. The country has neither a family planning nor population planning policy. For years, government officials and lawmakers have turned a blind eye to the problem. They can’t even officially admit that the country’s runaway population growth rate, one of the highest in the world, is one of the major causes of the country’s pathetic economic situation.

During the Marcos years, the Philippines had a sound family planning program, and the country’s population was slowed down for some time. There were even family planning centers in barangay health clinics. When the devoutly religious Cory Aquino became president, the family planning program was completely abandoned and forgotten, and to this day, government officials and lawmakers refuse to even discuss it because of strong opposition from the Roman Catholic Church.

The government will have to rethink its position on family planning. But who among our politicians will have the courage to face up to the Roman Catholic Church, which boasts of loyalty from 80 percent of Filipinos?

Will they continue to dilly-dally until the Philippines reaches what Thomas Robert Malthus wrote in his "An Essay on the Principles of Population," where he warned in 1798 that population tended to grow faster than food supplies and that population increases geometrically, and will continue to double itself in succeeding generations until it reaches its "misery level."

In the meantime, will the country’s leaders just watch as Filipinos continue to sink deep into the quicksand of ignorance and poverty?

(valabelgas@aol.com)

Highway of Hope

2008-04-17T10:33:00.000-07:00

By Val G. Abelgas

04/15/08

For more than 50 days now, four adults and two small children have been traveling all over the United States in a minivan, sowing the seeds of hope among Filipinos in America for their compatriots in poverty-stricken Philippines. They have journeyed more than 10,000 miles in a drive through America’s heartland, having left San Jose, California on Feb. 27 for a trip that will bring them all the way to the East Coast and back to the West Coast for their last stop on May 18.

Calling their trip the “Highway of Hope,” the group is composed of Dylan Wilk, the young multi-millionaire British entrepreneur who gave up his budding business empire to devote full time to helping rebuild the Philippines “one community at a time” through Gawad Kalinga, his wife Anna, daughter of Gawad Kalinga founder Tony Meloto; their children 2-1/2-year-old Ariel and six-month-old Chloe; Nathan Mari, national coordinator of GK1MB (Gawad Kalinga 1 Million Builders); and John Dizon, Anna’s cousin from New Jersey. They will visit 72 cities in 81 days to bring the message of Gawad Kalinga to Filipino communities in these cities and hopefully encourage them to help build GK villages for the Philippines’ poor families.

Just driving through these cities is punishing enough, and yet these people still have to talk to Filipino groups in every stop, explaining how the Gawad Kalinga has helped bring hope to a people long languishing in despair by giving them back their pride and dignity through low-cost, but beautiful and functional homes and helping them get back on their feet through livelihood, health, educational and other programs.

In nearly every city they have visited, Dylan’s group was met warmly and left with a pledge from Filipino professionals and community leaders to raise funds to build at least one GK village.

Gawad Kalinga was envisioned by Tony Meloto 10 years ago after immersing himself in a community volunteer work with Couples for Christ members in Bagong Silang, a squatter relocation site in Caloocan City. He realized then that to inspire the community to help themselves, they have to be given back their dignity and removed from the mentality of slum dwellers. He thought of building low-cost houses that meet the basic needs of the family.

With the help of Couples for Christ volunteers, Meloto built the first few Gawad Kalinga houses, brick by brick. The houses were given to the community members for free, but the entire community had to help in building them. But unlike government housing projects of the past, Gawad Kalinga did not stop there. GK volunteers also built health centers, schoolhouses and launched livelihood projects.

Soon, more GK villages were built from donations from well-meaning Filipinos in the country and abroad. And more people – not just from the Couples for Christ, but also from schools, parishes and civic groups -- volunteered to help build the houses and sustain livelihood and other projects.

On October 4, 2003, Gawad Kalinga launched GK 777 with an ambitious goal – to build 700,000 homes in 7,000 villages in 7 years. Since then, Gawad Kalinga has built more than 100,000 homes in more than 850 villages. The figures are still far from the goal, but the movement has caught on, and has caught the fancy of millions of Filipinos overseas, and hundreds of foreign governments and entities.

Alumni groups, employees groups, corporations, civic organizations, businessmen, professional groups, schools and parishes, and even foreign governments have come together to sponsor their own villages all over the Philippines – converting thousands of slum neighborhoods into model communities, with colorful and clean homes, and bringing back hope and dignity to this long-forgotten sector of the community.

Gawad Kalinga has shown that given the right motivation and inspiration, Filipinos are capable of helping their fellow Filipinos rise from the depths of despair, and that with proper support and guidance, the poorest of the poor can become productive citizens. Gawad Kalinga has shown, albeit inadvertently, that sans the greed and insensitivity of the country’s politicians, the Philippines can be great again.

Dylan likened their 14,000-mile drive to the journey taken by St. Paul more than 2,000 years ago when the apostle traveled through mountains and deserts to propagate the Christian faith and helping build churches and converting people to Christianity. While St. Paul journeyed to sow seeds of faith, Dylan’s group traveled to sow the seeds of hope for a people who have felt for many decades that their government has abandoned them.

Supporting Gawad Kalinga is one concrete step many Filipinos in diaspora can take to give back to the Homeland. Where the government has failed, Gawad Kalinga is succeeding. Gawad Kalinga has given hundreds of thousands of Filipinos hope, where the government has only offered despair. Gawad Kalinga has done so much to improve the lives of many Filipinos without parading the beneficiaries before the media.

When Dylan and company pass by your city, please welcome them and listen to what they have to say. As of this writing, Dylan and company are in New York. In the second half of April, the Highway of Hope group will visit Pittsburg and Philadelphia in Pennsylvania, Wilmington in Delaware, Bergenfield in New Jersey, Boston, Massachusetts, Cleveland and Cincinnati in Ohio, Ann Arbor in Michigan, Chicago and Springfield in Illinois, Lexington in Kentucky, Indianapolis, Bloomington and Terre Haute in Indiana, Minneapolis in Minnesota, Colorado Springs and Denver in Colorado, Salt Lake City in Utah, Spokane, Olympia and Seattle in Washington and Portland in Oregon.

They have already visited Oakland, Vallejo, Sacramento, Stockton, San Jose, San Bruno, San Francisco, Fremont and Salinas in Northern California; Bakersfield, La Mirada, Los Angeles, San Bernardino, Oxnard, Escondido and San Diego in Southern California; Las Vegas in Nevada; Tucson and Phoenix in Arizona; Wichita and Kansas City in Kansas; Oklahoma City in Oklahoma; Lubbock, Austin, San Antonio, Dallas, Houston, Tomball, Port Arthur and Midland in Texas; Baton Rouge and New Orleans in Louisiana; St. Louis, Missouri; Jacksonville, Orlando, Fort Lauderdale, Naples, Miami, West Palm Beach, and Tampa in Florida; Charleston in South Carolina; Charlotte and Winston-Salem in North Carolina; Virginia Beach, Norfolk and Williamsburg in Virginia; Washington D.C., Baltimore in Maryland; and New York City in New York.

The Highway of Hope hopes to connect Filipino communities in the United States and empower them into one giant entity that would make thousands of “villages of hope” bloom on the land we call home.

(valabelgas@aol.com)

Arroyo’s fling with China

2008-04-10T16:03:00.000-07:00

By Val G. Abelgas
February 25, 2008

Lost in the din of protests over alleged bribery and corruption in the $329-million NBN-ZTE deal were two stories in the Malaya newspaper last Friday that could explain why China has been willing to pour in billions of dollars and pay hundreds of millions of dollars in bribes in obviously overpriced infrastructure and economic projects in the Philippines.

In the first story, bannered by Malaya, the newspaper’s publisher, Amado Macasaet claimed that Gloria Macapagal Arroyo and former Speaker Jose V. de Venecia may have committed treason in entering into the so-called "Spratly Deal" with Beijing in exchange for loans attended by bribery and corruption. Macasaet said he was told by a source that under the "Spratly Deal," China would be allowed to explore territorial waters of the Philippines.

"This is treason because the pact has the effect of giving away Philippine sovereignty to a foreign country. In return, Chinese-owned firms provide the Philippines with overpriced loans for numerous projects," he said.

On the same front page, the newspaper reported about an article in the January-February 2008 issue of the Far Eastern Economic Review accusing Arroyo of selling out to China the Philippine and regional interests in the South China Sea.
Barry Wain, a former Wall Street Journal Asia editor, in his article titled "Asean: Manila’s Bungle in the South China Sea," argued that Arroyo violated a 2002 regional agreement that called on Asean member-states to deal with China as a bloc on the six-country Spratly Islands dispute.

Wain said that during Arroyo’s state visit to China in 2004, the two countries signed the "Agreement for Seismic Undertaking for Certain Areas in the South China Sea By and Between China National Offshore Oil Corporation and Philippine National Oil Company" which, Wain said, angered Vietnam.

"Vietnam immediately voiced concern, declaring that the agreement, concluded without consultation, was not in keeping with the spirit of the 2002 Asean-China Declaration on the Conduct of Parties," Wain wrote. Wain also said that "ironically, it was Manila that first sought a united front and rallied Asean to confront China over its intrusion into Mischief Reef a decade earlier."

Vietnam stopped its objections in March 2005 when it joined China and the Philippines in turning the agreement into a tripartite undertaking.

"The Philippines also has made breathtaking concessions in agreeing to the area for study, including parts of its own continental shelf not even claimed by China and Vietnam," said Wain. He stressed that "through its actions, Manila has given a certain legitimacy to China’s legally spurious ‘historic claim’ to most of the South China Sea."

Calling the Philippines "militarily weak and lagging economically," Wain said the Arroyo government "had opted for Chinese favors at the expense of Asean political solidarity."

These stories partially explain why Arroyo has been able to obtain billions of dollars in loans to finance various projects, including the highly anomalous $329-million NBN deal, the questionable $460-million cyber-education project, the $500-million North Rail project, the disadvantageous 19 fisheries and agriculture projects totaling $4.9 billion, and many more dubious deals.

For more than a year now, these highly anomalous deals have been exposed one by one, although not in the same explosive level as the NBN deal. And China has remained quiet amid the furor.

Long after the former First Lady Imelda R. Marcos visited the late Chinese leader Mao Tse-tung in September 1874, which was followed by President Marcos’ official visit in 1975, the diplomatic ties between the Philippines and China was largely uneventful.

But things turned around after Arroyo pulled the small Philippine contingent from Iraq in July 2004 as part of efforts to release hostage Angelo de la Cruz. China saw an opportunity to seize diplomatic initiative from the United States in the Philippines, which remains the US’ biggest ally in Southeast Asia. Arroyo, on the other hand, needed financial assistance for her economic recovery efforts – and now, on hindsight, for her family’s and friends’ own wealth accumulation objectives.

That same year, Arroyo went on a state visit to China – her first of many – and entered into an agreement with China for joint exploration activities in the disputed Spratly islands. It has now become obvious that Arroyo used the Spratlys deal as leverage for the billions of dollars of loans for her other various dubious deals with the Chinese government. After all, it is believed that millions of barrels of oil lie beneath or around the islands, and the area is one of the richest fishing grounds in the region. At the same time, Spratlys and the Philippines occupy a very strategic location in the South China Sea, certainly worth the attention of the emerging superpower China.

The succeeding years saw a flurry of agreements between the two countries. Among them were the 19 agreements involving investments estimated at $4.9 billion, or P240.1 billion, signed during Chinese Premier Wen Jiabao’s state visit to the Philippines on Jan. 15 and 16, 2007.

A lawyers' group said the agreements violate several provisions of the Philippine Constitution. Under the Constitution, no corporation or group can lease more than 1,000 hectares in the country. In these 19 agreements, 1.24 million hectares are going to be leased to Chinese corporations for 25 years, renewable for another 25 years. The deal will cover a total of 8.8 million hectares of idle alienable and disposable lands and forest lands.

The agreements would also allow Chinese firms to fish in the country’s fishing grounds and conduct mining explorations.

The agreements would allow Chinese utilization of the country’s lands and marine resources to the great disadvantage of Filipino farmers, fishermen and businesses, and further increase our already ballooning foreign debts.

Aside from the fact that the projects would divert areas intended for food production to energy production, and could lead to further deforestation, the projects were obviously intended to benefit Arroyo cronies or dummies. At least six of the agreement’s beneficiaries were either non-existent or were newly registered.

After a public uproar, Agriculture Secretary Arthur Yap suspended the implementation of the projects.

And then came the controversial $500-million North Rail project, the cancelled $329-million NBN deal, the suspended $460-million cyber-education project, and many more that still have to be revealed to the public.

With these disadvantageous deals, Arroyo surrendered the country’s sovereignty, violated Philippines laws, encouraged graft and corruption, and sold the country’s soul.

Arroyo has deftly played the emerging power struggle between the US and China to obtain funding for her numerous dubious deals. While getting her billions from China, Arroyo allows US troops to virtually maintain a military base in Mindanao in the guise of anti-terrorist training or military exercise.

But like any three-way love affair, the one in the middle – in this case Arroyo – the one who plays with fire, always gets burned. The affair will soon come to a head, and either China or the US will drop her like hot potato.

(valabelgas@aol.com)

RP needs an upheaval

2008-04-10T15:58:00.000-07:00

By Val G. Abelgas
March 3, 2008

After the massive inter-faith rally in Makati on Feb. 29 calling for the resignation of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, Malacanang spokesmen and media hacks disguising as newspaper columnists were quick to pronounce the protest as a failure, proof that Filipinos favor political stability over people power.

Their judgment was based on their questionable claim that only 15,000 attended the Makati rally, a position based on police estimates, as against the estimates of rally organizers and news reporters of from 70,000 to 80,000 people. Even if we assume that Malacanang and the police were half-correct, the number would still be more than double their estimates for the previous Makati rally of 5,000 to 6,000 on Feb. 25. But based on the media estimates, it would appear that the Feb. 29 numbers were from four to five times bigger than their estimate of 15,000 protesters on Feb. 25.

Either way, it would be safe to say that the number of people joining the move to demand the ouster of Arroyo is growing. The anti-Arroyo forces vow to stage bigger rallies in the coming days. Whether they succeed in massing people in the level of Edsa 1 and Edsa 2 or not seems to be the standard measure for the success of the anti-Arroyo movement, based on the presumption that the military will have no choice but to withdraw its support from the Arroyo government.

Amid these arguments over whether the Makati rally was a success or not, Pulse Asia released a survey which showed that 7 out of 10 (69%) of those surveyed in Metro Manila would support protest actions like prayer rallies and demonstrations calling for the resignation of those involved in the NBN-ZTE scandal. The survey also showed that six of 10 (61%) believed that the testimony of NBN witness Rodolfo Lozada Jr. could lead to the downfall of the Arroyo government.

However, the survey said only 16 percent were willing to join protest actions, with majority of them (61 percent) coming from the "masa" Class D, followed by the poorest Class E (42 percent). Willingness to join prayer rallies is most pronounced among those in Class ABC (24 percent).

Pulse Asia said the most often-cited reasons by Metro Manilans for not joining protest actions is they have more important things to do (26 percent), there is no genuine change whoever leads the government (26 percent), and the need to earn for their daily expenses (21 percent). The third reason is a bigger concern for those in classes D and E than in Class ABC (26 percent to 27 percent versus 10 percent).

The other reasons cited were a good alternative leader should be presented to the people first, 7 percent; People Power fatigue, 6 percent; just wait for the May 2010 elections, 6 percent; and the leaders calling for the President’s resignation should themselves be credible, 3 percent.

The survey seems to dispel claims that the people are tired of People Power, with only 6 percent claiming People Power fatigue as the reason for not joining rallies. The survey also showed that most of those not willing to join protest actions were those coming from the lowest classes (Classes DE). This, of course, can be explained by the fact that these people have more immediate concerns, such as laying food on the table, and are less informed on the issues and impact of the NBN and other scandals.

It must be pointed out, however, that both the EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 were led by the middle class, civil society and professionals, who were later joined by the lower economic classes as the issues became clearer to them. It also seemed to show that people are frustrated with the inability of EDSA 1 and EDSA 2 to bring about positive changes to the country’s governance.

I am pointing out these things because over the weekend, Leo Aromin, publisher-editor of the Fil-Am Journal in Phoenix, Arizona, asked me and other opinion writers whether we thought Arroyo would stay in power until 2010 or she would be ousted before then.

There is one big reason Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is still in Malacanang. It's not that the people are People Power-fatigued as many believe. If you'll notice in news interviews, those who say they would rather stay home than go to rallies because the same dirty politicians would replace Arroyo anyway are the housewives, the ordinary employees, the jeepney drivers, the market vendors, etc. But these are not the people who created the two People Power uprisings that booted out two corrupt presidents.

The Edsa uprisings were led by people from the middle class, who finally felt the frustrations and despair of the lower classes and who felt they had to do something because the ordinary Filipino wouldn't do anything, were too busy to find food for the table or were too afraid to do something. It will be the same middle classes -- the so-called civil society group, the businessmen, the professionals, and yes, the reawakened students -- who will again march to Edsa or this time, to Makati to bring down another tyrant.

The only reason Arroyo is still in Malacanang is not because the bishops cannot stand as one against a corrupt and morally bankrupt leader. The bishops had always been split. But the movement needs only one charismatic and dedicated leader like Cardinal Sin to lead the faithful back to Edsa. It is disappointing that the archbishops who can become another Cardinal Sin are coming from the provinces -- Archbishop Angel Lagdameo of Iloilo and Archbishop Oscar Cruz of Lingayen -- but once both join the Metro Manila rallies, the faithful will follow.

The only reason Arroyo is still in Malacanang is not because former President Fidel V. Ramos is still supporting him. While it is true Ramos still commands some influence in the military, he no longer holds sway on the officers who will support the next EDSA -- the same group of idealistic, then young officers who defended EDSA (General Lim, Col. Querubin, Gen. Miranda and the untainted young majors, colonels and generals) -- who are just awaiting the numbers at Edsa or in Makati.

The only reason Arroyo is still in Malacanang is Vice President Noli de Castro. While there is nearly unanimous stand among the middle class, the militants, and the civil society groups to oust Arroyo, they are extremely divided over who will succeed her. A great majority of the Edsa forces wouldn't have anything to do with De Castro, who they perceive to be inexperienced, incapable and potentially corrupt. But they can't agree either how they will bypass De Castro. The only way they can bypass De Castro is by suspending the Constitution and forming a revolutionary transition government, like the one created after the 1986 Edsa. But who will lead this transition government? Won't that leader or junta be tempted to hold on to power longer than necessary? How long will the transition government lead?

While the politicians are continually attacking Arroyo and calling for his ouster in public, many of them don't want De Castro to take over, either, for the obvious reason that letting De Castro become president even for just two years will make him a formidable opponent in the 2010 presidential elections because he will have the government machinery and resources at his command. On the other hand, if they agree to an extra-constitutional takeover, they could possibly lose their chance at the polls, unless there is an assurance that a snap election would be called within six months, or at the most one year.

Until the anti-Arroyo forces find an acceptable solution to the question of succession, Arroyo will remain in power. The longer they decide on the succession issue, the lower their chances of ousting Arroyo. The momentum which Lozada and the NBN issue provided cannot be kept for long. It will continue to build up for probably a few more weeks, but soon the Edsa or Makati people will have to go back to work or for the students, to their vacation.

But one thing is certain even if the anti-Arroyo forces gain enough people to crowd Edsa or Makati. Arroyo won't do a Marcos or an Estrada. She will fight. She will not succumb. Arroyo is one tough nut. She had seen what happened to Marcos and Estrada after they absconded the throne. She wouldn't want to be exiled to some small nation (the US and other big nations are no longer viable sanctuaries because these are signatories to the UN Convention Against Corruption) nor spend her time in a lonely cell or under house arrest. My reading is that Arroyo, with her back against the wall, will declare martial law. She has been setting the tone for such a situation with the help of General Esperon (her alleged accomplice in the Mindanao poll fraud in 2004) and General Razon (a distant relative) with announcements of alleged assassination plot, terrorist or communist plots, coup plots, etc.

But People Power should not just be about ousting presidents. If by staging mass rallies, the people are made aware of their right and duty to air their grievances, then People Power shall have succeeded. If by staging mass protests, the people make government officials think twice before committing corruption and abuses, then People Power shall have succeeded. If by staging mass protests, the future generation shall be more aggressive in making sure that their elected leaders would become more responsible officials or more selective of the people they will vote, then People Power shall have succeeded.

The country is indeed caught in trying times. The next several months will be difficult times for the people and the nation. And yet, the country needs an upheaval of hurricane proportions to get out of the rut it is in. The great nations like the US, China, Britain, Russia and France all had to suffer through civil wars and revolutions, and emerged greater nations. Let us just hope that the Philippines and the Filipino people will emerge triumphant from all these crises.

(valabelgas@aol.com)

Pacquiao made us all proud

2008-04-10T15:54:00.000-07:00

By Val G. Abelgas

I wasn’t at the Mandalay Bay Resort & Casino in Las Vegas this time when countryman Manny Pacquiao wrested the WBC super featherweight championship from Juan Manuel Marquez of Mexico last weekend. You couldn’t help but be overwhelmed by the way Pacquiao outfought a game and ready Marquez, and feel proud being a Filipino.

I was near ringside in Pacquiao’s three epic battles with Mexican Erik Morales in Las Vegas, and I was overwhelmed at the way Filipinos in the audience cheered for him, matching the Mexicans scream for scream, flag for flag, chant for chant, and jeers for jeers.

For millions of Filipinos in Mandalay Bay and all over the world, it was not just Pacquiao earning that sweet victory on that ring. In a sense, we all earned our own personal victories because we cheered for that victory, and our wish was fulfilled.

We are all proud of the victory, and we are all proud of Pacquiao. I do not begrudge politicians like Vice President Noli de Castro and Ilocos Sur Gov. Chavit Singson for climbing onto the ring and raising Pacquiao’s hand in victory. I would have done the same if I could.

I wouldn’t begrudge Gloria Macapagal Arroyo either if she arranges a huge parade for Pacquiao, or if she declares a national holiday on the day Pacquiao arrives. Pacquiao won a fight that made us all proud, and he deserves all the attention and accolade that we can give him. His victory lifted the Filipino people’s sliding spirits, and we should all be thankful for that. His triumph gave us a reason to be proud again, and we should thank him for that.

But we hope, just like most Filipinos, that the Arroyos and the other politicians wouldn’t use Pacquiao for their political aggrandizement. We hope that the Arroyos don’t drag Pacquiao into the political fray that they are in. Pacquiao is a precious prizefighter, and should be kept from the infectious virus of politics. He was once lured into politics, and he should now know better that Philippine politics is not for a great athlete like him.

Pacquiao would be better off without being infected by dirty politics. He won because there were no distractions this time, and politics and politicians are major distractions that could ruin his career. Leave him alone.

After all the celebrations and jubilations, however, we should not lose track of the real issues that confront our nation. Arroyo still has to face the people and account for the following issues: The treasonous Spratlys deal with China, the anomalous $329-million NBN-ZTE deal and other graft-ridden, Chinese-funded projects such as the North-South Rail project and the $2-billion agricultural projects, the missing P27-billion seized Marcos funds, the multi-million peso fertilizer scam, the election cheating allegations, and the bribing of congressmen and governors.

In the meantime, we can all celebrate. Cheers to Manny Pacquiao! Cheers to the Filipino people!

(Valabelgas@aol.com)

Yes, Gloria, there is a shortage

2008-04-10T15:48:00.000-07:00

By Val G. Abelgas
March 24, 2008

Confronted with a rice crisis, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo assured the people that there is no shortage of rice, but they should expect a rise in the price of rice. Her agriculture secretary, Arthur Yap, on the other hand, appealed for rice conservation, asking eateries, in particular, to serve half the amount of rice they ordinary give to customers.

Arroyo’s denial of a rice shortage was contradicted twice on the same day. In the first place, if there were enough supply, the price of rice shouldn’t have to go up. If there were enough rice, why would the agriculture secretary appeal to the people to reduce their consumption?

But that has always been how the Arroyo administration confronts a crisis – by denying there is a crisis. Arroyo’s first reaction, again, was to deny the existence of a problem, instead of acknowledging and confronting it.

There is a rice supply crisis. And it is not exclusive to the Philippines because it is a global problem. The only difference is that other rice-consuming countries have enough supply to tide them over the crisis or have enough money to purchase at a much higher price, while the Philippines has a dangerously low supply and dangerously low cash.

The Philippines is the world’s third biggest rice importer, next only to Indonesia and Nigeria. For a country that prides itself of the world’s best rice research institution – the International Rice Research Institute in Los Banos, which taught people from the now top rice producers, like Thailand and Vietnam, how to produce high-yielding rice varieties – it is ironic that it has now become one of the world’s biggest importers of the staple from these same countries.

The Philippines has always depended on rice importation to meet its own needs. With the rapid population growth, the need to import rice has also increased significantly. Local rice production over the last 16 years has grown from 6.09 million tons in 1990 to 10.02 million tons in 2006, or about 2.45 percent per year on average. This growth has been offset, however, by the rapid rise in the number of Filipinos — from 60.7 million in 1990 to 88 million in 2006. The national population is estimated to reach 94.03 million by 2010.

For years, the country has been able to get sufficient supply from traditional rice-exporting countries such as Thailand, Vietnam, China, India and Egypt. But because of the increased worldwide demand for the staple brought about by the rapid rise in the world’s population, particularly in rice-consuming Asian countries, these countries have either banned or restricted the export of the precious commodity.

Arroyo assured the people that there would be enough rice for everybody, adding that she had appealed personally to the Vietnamese prime minister to sell the Philippines 1.5 million metric tons of rice. Vietnam agreed to sell only 1 million metric tons, including 700,000 metric tons already stipulated in earlier contracts. This means only 300,000 of additional supply would be coming in. This should tide over the Filipinos for a few months. But what happens after this new supply has been consumed? Will Vietnam or any other rice-producing country oblige another request?

In fact, the Philippines still faces a shortage of over 500,000 metric tons of rice this year. The Philippines expects a production shortfall of 1.5 million to 1.8 million tons this year amid tight global supply and rising prices. In 2006, according to the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, every Filipino consumed 118.7 kilos or 2.4 sacks of rice a year. That amounts to a daily per capita rice consumption of 325.21 grams per citizen. The Philippines produces about 90 percent of the rice it needs but also today needs to import up to 2.1 million metric tons, to be able to maintain its two-month inventory. Over the last three months, that inventory has thinned by 20 percent.

Unless the world rice supply situation improves, which is unlikely because rice plantations are giving way to other cash crops, to industrial use, or residential use in most of these countries, the country will be reduced to begging the world for the much-needed staple and millions of Filipinos face the stark possibility of rice rationing, long lines for the staple, hunger, and ultimately, as several senators rightly warned, chaos and political upheaval.

But instead of providing a long-term solution to the problem, Arroyo, as usual, is offering a “band-aid” approach by looking to import more rice. She did promise P1.5 billion to improve rice production, but with the P720-million fertilizer scam still fresh in the people’s mind, what good will it do? The funds that should have been given to rice farmers to increase their yield, went instead to fund Arroyo’s reelection in 2004 and to the pockets of unscrupulous politicians. I won’t be surprised if we read about a P1.5-billion rice production scam next year.

There is a rice crisis and the government needs to acknowledge it, pinpoint its causes, and come up with a long-term solution, not mere patch-up prescriptions. I can come up with a few reasons why the country has not been able to produce enough like its neighbors -- corruption, which has diverted funds for needed agriculture support such as fertilizers and farm-to-feeder roads; rice cartels, which have exploited and discouraged rice farmers, hoarded rice and manipulated rice prices; lack of government and private support to enable farmers to modernize production; conversion of rice farmlands to cash crops or non-agricultural uses; uncontrolled population growth which keeps rice production lagging behind; and the corrupt and incompetent National Food Authority which illegally diverts subsidized rice intended for the poor to greedy cartels.

Yes, Madam Arroyo, there is a rice shortage that is approaching crisis proportions. And until you accept this as fact, millions of your people face a very dark and hungry future.

(valabelgas@aol.com)

The court capitulates

2008-04-10T15:40:00.000-07:00

By Val G. Abelgas
April 8,2008

No wonder Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita kept on challenging the
critics of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo to bring disputed issues, accusations and
controversies to the court. He seemed so confident that the court -- whether it was
the lower court, the appeallate court, the Sandiganbayan or the Supreme Court
– would rule in favor of Malacanang, as in the case of the Senate versus
former Economic Planning Secretary Romulo Neri on the matter of executive
privilege.

By a close vote of 9-6, the High Tribunal upheld Neri’s claim of
executive privilege in refusing to answer three questions that could establish Arroyo’s involvement in the anomalous $320-million NBN-ZTE deal. The questions were:
1) whether the President followed up on the NBN deal; 2) whether Neri was
dictated to prioritize the project; and 3) whether Arroyo gave the go-ahead to
Neri to approve the deal in spite of the alleged bribery.

The decision was written by Associate Justice Teresita Leonardo-de Castro and
concurred by Associate Justices Leonardo Quisumbing, Renato Corona, Dante
Tinga, Minita Chico-Nazario, Presbiterio Velasco, Antonio Eduardo Nachura, Ruben
Reyes and Arturo Brion.

Dissenting were Chief Justice Reynato Puno and Associate Justices
Consuelo Ynares-Santiago, Ma. Alicia Austria-Martinez, Conchita Carpio-Morales,
Adolfo Azcuna and Antonio Carpio.

These questions are crucial to finding out the truth about the
controversial deal, a truth Malacanang has obviously summoned all its resources to cover-up. If there were no impropriety on the part of Arroyo, why not allow Neri to
answer the questions? Why has Neri refused to answer the questions, and why
did Malacanang forbid Neri from answering them by ordering him to claim
executive privilege?

The decision, clearly based on political rather than judicial
considerations, virtually legalized cover-ups by this administration, the same crime that was imputed on United States President Richard Nixon that forced him to
resign. In a larger sense, the decision would embolden this and future
administrations to commit corruption and abuses that would go unpunished because the
highest court of the land – the last resort for the abused people – ruled that
covering up a crime is a prerogative of the country’s highest official.

The Supreme Court relied on Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita’s claim
that national interest is involved because diplomatic relations with China would
be jeopardized if Neri answered the questions. The court is telling the
aggrieved people to shut up and look the other way because a country that aims to
violate our sovereignty would not like them asking questions. National
interest, how many times have our leaders used thy name in vain?

But there is another danger further down the road. Now that Arroyo is
confident that he can control a co-equal branch of government and neutralize
another co-equal department, this manipulative leader will certainly up the ante.

It is a common perception among political pundits that Arroyo, despite
her assurances, is not ready to step down in 2010. She has enjoyed the power and
her family has billions of reasons to make her stay in power. For many years,
Arroyo has tried to amend the Constitution apparently to enable her to become
prime minister in a new parliamentary set-up, but the Senate and the Supreme
Court have stopped her in her track. But now that she has realized that even
the justices can be influenced to neutralize the Senate, what will stop her
from restarting the engine of the cha-cha train and running over whoever blocks
its way?

Although Arroyo is certain she has control over the House of
Representatives, it is also almost certain that any initiative coming from the House to convene Congress into a constituent assembly for the purpose of amending the Con
stitution will be blocked by the Senate. Another way to amend the charter is
by convening a constitutional convention, which also has to be approved by both
the House and the Senate. Arroyo has to bypass the Senate if she wishes to
pursue the shift to parliamentary system of government, where she hopes to
become a prime minister for as long as she controls the coffers.

The Constitution provides an avenue where she can bypass the Senate, and
that’s through a people’s initiative. But any people’s initiative will have
to pass the legal test at the Supreme Court. The high tribunal has twice
rejected a people’s initiative – once during the term of President Fidel V. Ramos
and the second one under the tenure of Arroyo in October 2006, when the
justices voted 8-7 to junk the people’s initiative started by Sigaw ng Bayan and the
Union of Local Administrators of the Philippines (ULAP).

Those who voted against the initiative in 2006 were then Chief Justice
Artemio V. Panganiban, and Justices Antonio Carpio, Consuelo Ynares-Santiago,
Angelina Sandoval Gutierrez, Alicia Austria Martinez, Conchita Carpio Morales, Romeo
Callejo Jr. and Adolfo Azcuna.

Panganiban, Gutierrez and Callejo have since retired.

Those who voted for the initiative were Justices (now Chief Justice) Reynato
Puno, Leonardo Quisumbing, Renato Corona, Dante Tinga, Mimita Nazario, Cancio
Garcia and Presbiterio Velasco Jr. Only Garcia has retired among the
initiative proponents, but Puno actually did not agree with the initiative. He voted to
remand the petition to the Commission on Elections to verify the veracity of
the signatures.

Arroyo appointed replacements to Panganiban, Gutierrez, Callejo and Garcia.
The replacements were Associate Justices Teresita Leonardo de Castro, Antonio
Eduardo Nachura, Ruben Reyes and Arturo Brion, who all sided with Arroyo in
affirming Neri’s use of executive privilege in the Senate v. Neri case.

With three of those who voted against the people’s initiative in 2006
replaced by Arroyo appointees, only five are left to block any attempt to force the
people’s initiative again. Puno, who has shown independence of mind lately, is
expected to vote against another attempt this time, but that only gives six
possible justices to block a people’s initiative, against a possible nine for
the proponents. That would give a likely 9-6 vote, just like in the recent Neri
case, enough to make a people’s initiative a reality.

Arroyo will stop at nothing to remain in power beyond 2010. The Neri case was
a good testing ground for her to pursue her goals. And the Supreme Court,
which is supposed to be the people’s last defense against tyrants, has apparently
capitulated to the scheming lady.

(valabelgas@aol.com)

Another questionable deal

2008-04-10T15:10:00.000-07:00

By Val G. Abelgas
April 1, 2008

Mount Diwata in Compostela Valley in Mindanao is no land for the fairy. For years, the village on that mountain, known as Diwalwal, has seen no fairy tale, only tales of murder and mayhem.

Since a Japanese straggler told the locals about the existence of gold in the mountain in the 70s, and the local tribes started mining them in 1982, thousands have flocked to the mountain village of Diwalwal to find gold. Many found gold; others found death and disease.

Small-scale miners scrambled to search for the precious metal, some as big as corn kernels, and made as much as thousands of pesos in a single day. When they could no longer find them on the surface, they dug tunnels. But soon, the big players joined in the rush to find gold, and started digging their own tunnels. In the rush for gold and money, the big players stepped over the small ones, and people started getting killed.

The small miners, who were limited by the government to mine the upper levels of the mountain, claimed that the operators of the lower tunnels, which were owned by the big mining firm, ordered them smoked out by ordering its workers to burn old tires and emptying acetylene tanks, causing the small miners in the upper tunnels to die or be hospitalized due to smoke annihilation.

Many more were feared killed by security men of the big mining firm, allegedly in cahoots with army troops sent to secure the area, or by fellow small miners themselves. Others disappeared under mysterious circumstances. Many more died in landslides and other tunnel accidents. Others died or hospitalized due to diseases caused by the presence of excessive amounts of mercury.

At least P50 billion worth of gold deposits and billions more in copper and other minerals reportedly lie beneath the mountain, making it the Philippines’ largest gold deposit and perhaps one of the world’s biggest. The right to mine the precious metals has been the source of disputes and violence in the small mountain village of Diwalwal for decades. It was a gold mine, indeed, but a powder keg as well.

In 1988, Marcopper Mining Corp., one of the biggest mining companies in the Philippines, was able to get prospecting rights over 4,491 hectares in the area, including Diwalwal. The 4,491 hectares were within 184,00 hectares under the timber licensing agreement owned by Picop Resources, Inc., the country’s biggest paper mill. But Marcopper couldn’t enforce its license because after the court upheld its mining rights, tens of thousands of small miners, many of them armed, were already mining the mountain and drove off Marcopper’s workers.

In 1994, after the Supreme Court again upheld its mining rights, Marcopper transferred its rights to Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp. for only one peso. Obviously, SMGMC was a dummy corporation of Marcopper because its incorporation papers showed Marcopper’s treasurer as its president. SMGMC, in turn, hired a local mining firm, JB Management and Mining Corp., owned by Mayor Joey Brillantes opf Monkayo, which has jurisdiction over Diwalwal.

The violence escalated when JBMMC entered the picture. Diwalwal barangay chairman Franco Tito said close to a hundred people have been killed since then. To avert violence, then Department of Environment and Natural Resources Secretary Antonio Cerilles mediated and created the so-called Cerilles Line, which clearly demarcated the tunnels to be mined by JBMMC and those to be mined by the small miners.

But the demarcation line failed to end the violence.

On June 23, 2006, the Supreme Court’s Third Division cancelled all mining rights and operations of all Filipino firms in the Diwalwal Gold Rush Area and gave the government full control of mining operations in the area. On July 12, 2006 – just 19 days after the Supreme Court decision -- the Philippine government signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the ZTE Corp. – yes, the same Chinese-owned firm that won the highly anomalous and cancelled $320-million National Broadband Network deal – granting ZTE mining exploration rights in Diwalwal.

There is no question that something has to be done to bring order to the mining operations in Diwalwal for the country to fully benefit from the huge gold deposit in the area. But, again, why ZTE? What’s with ZTE that it seems to be favored by the Arroyo government in the award of huge contracts? Why favor ZTE over bigger and more reliable mining firms? Does ZTE even have experience in mining explorations? What happens to the livelihood of the small miners? Will they be protected under the agreement with ZTE?

The bigger question is: Why is Gloria Macapagal Arroyo so keen on giving the rights to explore the country’s natural resources to foreigners, to the Chinese in particular? Is this part of the deal with China, just like the Spratlys deal, in exchange for billions of dollars in loans, the bulk of which would only go to favored politicians’ pockets? Or was it part of the fund-raising efforts for the 2007 campaign, just like the NBN deal was claimed to be?

The Arroyo government has so many explaining to do in so many anomalous transactions – the NBN-ZTE deal, the Spratlys deal, the P729-million fertilizer scam, the P2.5-billion swine scam, the P2-billion irrigation scam, and so many other questionable projects -- and yet it continues to evade the truth by hiding behind the safety of executive privilege. And when asked to comment on the Diwalwal deal, Deputy Presidential Spokeswoman Lorelei could only say that the government would be transparent in all its agreements regarding mining explorations in Diwalwal, and yet could not confirm whether there was such an agreement with ZTE or not.

Had not the Southeast Mindanao Gold Mining Corp. brought the case to the Supreme Court, the people may not have known of this other questionable deal with ZTE.

Will this administration ever tell the truth about anything? Does this administration have any project that is above board? I say nay.

Abalos had no choice

2007-10-05T12:16:00.000-07:00

By Val G. Abelgas

The sudden resignation of Commission on Elections Chairman Benjamin Abalos Jr. last Monday elicited various reactions from the opposition to Malacanang, but one thing was certain: everybody welcomed it. The reactions ranged from relief to skepticism, depending on which side of the fence one was in.

Senate President Manuel Villar said Abalos’ resignation, which came on the heels of an impeachment complaint filed against him in the House of Representatives, showed that “delicadeza” was alive. He was alone in saying it, though. At least two other opposition senators offered kind words. Sen. Benigno Aquino III said Abalos spared the Comelec from “further harm.” Sen. Jinggoy Estrada said Abalos displayed “courage.”

Senate Richard J. Gordon echoed what was obviously the general sigh of relief by administration officials, and said “an anxiety has been lifted with Mr. Abalos’ decision to resign.” Speaker Jose de Venecia said Abalos’ resignation “will spare the 14th Congress and the Filipino people a protracted, contentious and potentially divisive impeachment process.”
Malacanang said it “respects” Commission on Elections (Comelec) Chairman Benjamin Abalos’ decision to resign, and at the same time “wished him well” in clearing his name. Interior Secretary Interior Secretary Ronaldo Puno praised Abalos’ move: “I actually congratulate him for his patriotism, with his sacrifice through his resignation and I wish him well. I think he probably made his decision with the interest of the entire political situation in mind.”
Comelec Commissioner Rene Sarmiento lauded the former chairman for protecting the image of the Comelec but added that it was inevitable for Abalos to step down to prevent the Comelec from being dragged further into the controversy.

Opposition congressmen naturally expressed skepticism. Bayan Muna party list Rep. Teddy Casino said Abalos resigned to save President Arroyo from another impeachment complaint for approving the NBN-ZTE deal. Sen. Jamby Madrigal called the resignation a sham, and scored Abalos for allowing himself to be used by Arroyo again. The bishops said the resignation was long overdue and was God’s response to their prayers.

“Resignation does not mean admission of guilt but it does not also exonerate Abalos,” said Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano, Blue Ribbon chair, adding the Ombudsman could still file charges against him. Sen. Mar Roxas said justice must be still pursued.

The United Opposition, the Black and White Movement and the Makati Business Club said the search for the truth on the broadband deal should not end with Abalos’ resignation.
What really made Abalos suddenly decide to resign?

Abalos said he was resigning to protect his family and the Comelec from further harm, and there’s no reason to doubt that. On the other hand, Abalos also resigned because he saw the handwriting on the wall. If he didn’t resign, he would be impeached.

De Venecia might be unwilling to help him. After all, the person who first blew the whistle on the $329-million National Broadband Network bribery scandal was his son and namesake, Joey de Venecia III. Even in the dirty world of politics, blood is still thicker than water.
Arroyo has not shown signs of support for him either. Recent events, in fact, showed – as Casino correctly pointed out – that Abalos was being fed to the lions when Arroyo’s close advisers, Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita and Budget Secretary Rolando Andaya Jr., allowed Neri to admit during the Senate blue ribbom committee hearing that he was offered P200 million in bribe by Abalos to endorse the controversial NBN deal, but stopped him from answering questions that would implicate Arroyo.

That Abalos would be allowed to fall alone became obvious when neither De Venecia nor Arroyo lifted a finger to make sure that the impeachment complaint would not prosper.
It would be to the best interest of Macalanang for him to resign before the impeachment process starts grinding.

The impeachment proceedings could divide the administration coalition at this time. Unless Speaker Jose De Venecia Jr. intervened on his behalf, his detractors could succeed in elevating the impeachment complaint to the Senate, where a guilty verdict is almost assured and where more of Arroyo’s and Abalos’s dirty laundry could be exposed. The political fallout would be tremendous. Impeachment should not proceed, and only Abalos’ resignation could stop that.
On the same day that Abalos announced his resignation, he and his family were seen dining in a restaurant with three of Arroyo’s closest advisers – Ermita, Andaya and National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales. The three said they were there to wish Abalos well, but I am more inclined to believe they were with him to reassure Abalos that he would be taken care of, and to make sure that Abalos does not implicate the Arroyos.

Malacanang had to console Abalos. After all, Abalos probably knows a lot of secrets involving the 2004 and 2007 elections, not to mention the Arroyos’ role in the NBN bribery scandal. You know how a Mafia lord sends over his associates to visit a colleague he had just slapped, to make sure he remains a friend.

Malacanang is also hoping that with the resignation of Abalos, the controversy would die a natural death, just like all the other scandals that have rocked the Arroyo administration – the $2-million extortion charge against former Justice Secretary Hernando Perez to approve the $470-million IMPSA contract, the P50-million telecommunications bribery scandal involving Mike Arroyo, the jueteng payoff scandal involving Mike and Mikey Arroyo, the P1.3-billion election computerization deal with Mega Pacific, the alleged P532.9-million overpricing of the P1.1-billion, 5.1-kilometer President Diosdado Macapagal Boulevard in the Manila Bay reclamation area, the P200-million Jose Pidal case, the $503-million North Rail project, the P728-million fertilizer fund scam, and the 2004 “Hello Garci” election controversy.

It must have been obvious to the opposition by now that Arroyo and her advisers are smart schemers and strategists. They have used all kinds of evil schemes to hide the truth from the public — EO 464, executive privilege, bribery, pork barrel, threats and intimidation, explained and unexplained disappearances of witnesses and principals (JocJoc Bolante, Virgilio Garcillano, Nani Perez, Lindong Bedol, Doble, and, of course, Mike Arroyo who has a habit of being abroad every time there is a scandal involving him), diversions (declaring all-out war against Muslim rebels, destabilization plots, etc.), or just plain lying.

I wouldn’t be surprised if Abalos suddenly takes a much-needed vacation like Mike Arroyo, Bolante and Perez before him. I wouldn’t be surprised either if a contract of almost the same amount with the Chinese government crops up in the future. After all, Sen. Ping Lacson said money has already changed hands, $68 million of which was used to fund the administration’s political campaign in the last elections.

The coincidences are too obvious for us not to think that the Abalos resignation was orchestrated. A day after Abalos resigns, Mike Arroyo comes back from vacation. On the same day, Arroyo goes to China and announces the NBN deal is off.

While in China, did Arroyo make amends for the controversy the NBN deal has generated? Did she reassure the Chinese that a replacement deal is possible? Who knows?

One thing is sure, though. Abalos didn’t resign out of delicadeza. He resigned because he had to. His resignation should not stop the Senate or any other agency from going to the bottom of the NBN deal.

(E-mail the author at valabelgas@aol.com)

Arroyo Ups Ante on Repression

2007-07-26T13:29:00.000-07:00

July 13, 2007

By Val G. Abelgas

Despite protests and concerns raised by the Catholic Bishops Conference of the Philippines (CBCP), among others, Gloria Macapagal Arroyo insisted on implementing the controversial Human Security Act of 2007, otherwise known as the anti-terrorism law, last July 15 even without the required implementing rules and regulations.

The anti-terror law was passed in haste, with Arroyo calling back the already-adjourned Congress to a special session and while the congressmen and senators were already focused on the campaign for the recent May elections. It is no surprise then that its implementation is now also being done in haste, despite the fact that there is really no imminent threat of terrorist acts that would be considered “sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand,” and the military is not even in full alert, except the police around Mendiola, where Malacanang is cringing in fear behind barbed wires and parked dump trucks from angry protesters.

The No. 1 leftist-hater National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales, who can’t distinguish between a legitimate protester and an armed NPA guerilla, insists that the law is “self-implementing” – whatever he means by that – and therefore does not need to have implementing rules and regulations. Even the United States, which had just lost more than 3,000 lives in the World Trade Center attack and is constantly under threat of terrorist acts, did not implement the Patriot Act until the Department of Homeland Security had issued implementing rules and regulations.

The implementation of the anti-terror law comes at a time when the Arroyo administration is under heavy fire from all over the world for various human rights violations, including the close to 900 unsolved extra-judicial murders, disappearance of several militant activists and church lay leaders, warrant-less arrests, illegal detentions, political repressions, and other illegal acts.

But Arroyo seemed not bothered by the criticisms because the extra-judicial killings remain unsolved and unabated, and political repression continues. And now, she wants to up the ante by working behind a highly dubious and obviously unconstitutional law.

The CBCP expressed concern that the broad and vague provisions of the law may be used “to legalize objectionable methods of fighting and quelling opposition to the obtaining government." The bishops said the definition of terrorism under Sec. 3 of the HSA (RA 9372) is "broad and dangerous" and could "serve and create a condition of widespread panic." Sec. 26, it said, "allows house arrest despite the posting of bail, prohibits the right to travel and to communicate with others."

“Provisions for seizure of assets in Section 39 and surveillance or wiretapping of suspects in Sec. 7, investigation of bank deposits and other assets in Section 28 – raise many eyebrows of lawyers and others," the CBCP said.

Former Vice President Teofisto Guingona, on the other hand, said: “This is worse than martial law, one that is legalized and on paper. Supposedly, it's a Human Security Act, but it's actually Human Degradation Act. A group of church leaders, human rights activists and civil libertarians added: “We believe that this law will exacerbate the human rights crisis in the country. We expect that this will result in more gross and systematic violations of human rights and political persecution of progressive groups and active critics of government under the guise of a counter-terrorism program."

Among other things, the bill would allow authorities to detain suspects for three days without court warrant or the filing of formal charges.

The bill also defined a terrorist act as “sowing and creating a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce the government to give in to an unlawful demand.” The bill, however, does not qualify what constitutes “a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic." An anti-terrorism council, to be composed mostly of Cabinet members, would be tasked to identify these acts and the organizations that would be tagged as terrorist organizations.

For a government that has not shown respect for democratic rights and institutions, the granting of such vague powers can be dangerous. For Cabinet members – like Justice Secretary Raul Gonzales and National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales -- who have openly labeled legitimate and legal militant organizations and party lists as either communists or terrorists, to make this determination is even more dangerous.

While the intent of the bill is to prevent “a condition of widespread and extraordinary fear and panic among the populace in order to coerce government in to an unlawful demand,” the proposed law could impose the same “extraordinary fear” on the public and thereby suppress legitimate dissent and curtail other freedoms. With the presence of fear of being branded a terrorist, of being arrested without warrant or filing of charges, of being the subject of wiretap or surveillance, the people would be a virtual victim of state terrorism.

I reiterate that there are enough laws to fight terrorism, without having to force the people to give up basic rights that are provided by the Constitution. What the country needs are more laws to protect the people from an increasingly abusive, repressive and oppressive government.

Arroyo’s zealousness to please his American benefactors can only be interpreted as another assault on democracy and freedom. How can the country afford to entrust extraordinary powers to an administration and military that equate dissent to sedition, militancy to insurgency, and insurgency to terrorism?

Puno Summit: Great, but…

2007-07-26T13:02:00.000-07:00

July 27, 2007

By Val G. Abelgas

The efforts of Supreme Court Chief Justice Reynato Puno to find a solution to the nagging problem of unsolved extrajudicial killings and enforced disappearances in the Philippines are definitely commendable. An important branch of government has finally come out of a state of denial and recognizes that there is a problem that calls for immediate solution.

The military and the executive branch’s continued state of denial had been cited by the United Nations’ Alston Commission as the reason the spate of extrajudicial killings remains unabated.

In a direct rebuke of its co-equal branches – the executive and legislative departments – the honorable Chief Justice Puno said Lady Justice must now “unsheathe (her) unused power” since elected political leaders entrusted with upholding human rights cannot fulfill that role. Puno made the stinging remarks at the start of the two-day National Consultative Summit on Extrajudicial Killings and Enforced Disappearances.

The summit came up with several recommendations to solve and stop the killings and disappearances, but whether Malacanang and Congress shall take heed remains a big question. Apparently, despite the presence of AFP Chief Hermenegildo Esperon Jr. at the summit, Malacanang itself has not shown the political will to stop the killings. Congress members, in the meantime, are still trapped in their own battles for control of the Senate and the House.

With the present composition of the Cabinet panel tasked to implement the dreaded Human Security Act of 2007 or the anti-terrorism law, I don’t see how things would change despite the frantic appeals of Puno and the summit attendees. Among those tasked to enforce the law are Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita, National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales and Justice Secretary Raul Gonzalez, who have consistently shown a personal hatred for militant activists.

Worse, it would seem that the extrajudicial killings and disappearances are actually an integral part of what is now looking like a government policy to decimate the ranks of the Left.

Recent articles that appeared in Philippine publications in the past week tend to confirm allegations that the decimation of the ranks of leftist militant organizations is part of a government policy to neutralize what were deemed as communist front organizations.

The Philippine Daily Inquirer ran a two-part series at the start of the week revealing the contents of an alleged confidential Malacanang document that detailed plans to “neutralize” the Communist Party of the Philippines by curbing the expansion of the party-list group Bayan Muna. Most of the more than 800 activists killed by unknown assailants since Gloria Macapagal Arroyo assumed power in 2001 belonged to Bayan Muna. Other victims were members of leftist groups Gabriela and Anakpawis.

The alleged document, titled “The Bayan Muna Party-List Victory and the Prospects for Wider National and Local Political Participation,” was written after Bayan MUna topped the party-list election in May 2001 and was submitted to the Office of Special Concerns, which was then under National Security Adviser Norberto Gonzales. The document was part of the evidence submitted by the Left to UN special rapporteur Philip Alston, who was in the Philippines last year to investigate the unsolved extrajudicial killings.

Gonzales admits there was such a proposal but that it was never implemented by the administration. Gonzales’ dread for the Left belies his denial. In the recent elections, Gonzales insisted that Bayan Muna is part of a “single politico-military complex controlled by the Communist Party of the Philippines.”

Gonzales said the alliance between the NPA and the party-list groups becomes obvious during elections because NPA rebels campaign for their candidates and at the same time intimidate or harass rival groups. He has also been pointing out that the extreme leftist party-list groups have never denounced the violence of the NPAs.

His statements were almost lifted from the secret Malacanang document, which called for the use of “massive intelligence operations” to counter the “grassroots clout” of Bayan Muna and its allied organizations. The paper also details the alleged involvement of the CPP in the parliamentary struggle through Bayan Muna and other party-list groups.

The secret document called for “strict monitoring of all Bayan Muna activities… Get the exact data of Bayan Muna’s electoral coverage, membership and network” and also recommended “the implementation of special intelligence operations to neutralize the members.”

Gonzales has been accused by Bayan Muna and the leftist party-list groups of instigating the arrest of, and filing of charges against the so-called Batasan 6 – representatives to Congress of the party-list groups Bayan Muna, Gabriela, Anakpawis and Akbayan.

Also last week, Arroyo was quoted as having talked to a Reuters reporter about “the use of both soft and hard power because we want to remove the breeding grounds and recruiting grounds of the terrorists.” What Arroyo meant by soft power and hard power is beyond us, but she was obviously referring to the militant groups, such as Bayan Muna and Gabriela, as the “breeding grounds and recruiting grounds” of the terrorists.

We can only hope that the “hard power” does not include killing the militant members of these groups. We also hope that the “special operations to neutralize members of leftist organizations” mentioned in the secret document did not include murder.

But what is equally disturbing are statements attributed last Wednesday by Melo Commission chairman former Supreme Court Justice Jose Melo to retired Army Gen. Jovito Palparan, which he said, fanned suspicions of military involvement (and, if we must add, an indication that the document was actually implemented): “I want communists totally erased, by neutralizing not just armed rebels but also members of communist front organizations that include leftist political parties, human rights and women’s organizations, lawyers and members of the clergy.”

From these developments, it would seem that Alston was wrong about saying that the problem is that the government remains in state of denial about the killings. From all indications, it would seem that despite its denial, the government has pursued a policy of neutralizing the militant Left, which some sectors of the military interpreted to mean eliminating them by murder.

Instead of directly ordering a stop to the killings, the Arroyo administration is now hell-bent on raising the tempo of political repression by insisting on enforcing an anti-terror law that would terrorize the people more than it would the terrorists. Already, troops are back in Metro Manila villages -- a move that was also recommended by the secret document -- obviously in preparation for the full implementation of the anti-terror law.

But are we surprised? Not now that the Malacanang document has been exposed, because one of the proposals in that paper was for the passage of the anti-terrorism bill as a means to further control the insurgency.

With the anti-left engine in full throttle, will Malacanang listen to the Puno summit’s recommendations and stop the drive? I don’t think so. In fact, just as the summit was about to conclude last Tuesday, death squads killed another activist in Tacloban.

(valabelgas@aol.com)

Death in the Family

2007-07-26T12:54:00.000-07:00

April 27, 2007

By Val G. Abelgas

MANILA -- A family tragedy has brought me back to the homeland this week, a hurried and very brief visit that I had always dreaded to make. My older brother died from complications of kidney failure Wednesday after fighting bravely for about 75 days at the Kidney Center, during which time he ebbed in and out of the throes of death and celebrated his 60th birthday in the presence of loving family and friends.

On the very first news that he was rushed to the Kidney Center because of extreme internal bleeding and breathing problems in mid-January, I suspected it was just a matter of time. But my brother Jun loved his family so much that he was not ready to leave them, and so decided to fight back. He was in and out of the ICU and tubes were stuck to his body to drain the blood in his stomach and the fluid in his lungs, and to help him take in oxygen.

On his birthday on February 7, he appeared winning his battle against the inevitable. He was up and about, cheerful in the presence of his wife, children, our 83-year-old mother, my brothers and sisters who were in the Philippines, other relatives and friends. The four of us brothers who lived abroad called to greet him, as we all did regularly throughout his 75-day ordeal. His voice was low and his speech was slow, but he sounded optimistic he would be out of the hospital soon. In fact, a physical therapist was helping him learn to walk again in anticipation of his full recovery.

But the bleeding came again and fluid started drowning his lungs again after a day or two, and he was back again in the ICU fighting for his life. For about 50 more agonizing days, he alternately hovered between hopeful and hopeless, and the situation drained him and his family physically and emotionally, not to mention financially because the hospital bill had exceeded the P1 million mark and still growing.

He couldn’t talk in his last few days because a respirator was stuck to his throat, but he appeared cheerful and still hopeful each time family and friends visited him. Then one night, he suffered a series of seizures and was soon declared brain dead. Doctors tried to revive him and after several attempts, told his wife he would never wake up although a respirator kept him alive.

The family was put in a situation thousands of families had gone through before -- a situation that asks the living to decide for the dying, whether he would be allowed to hang on and hope for a miracle, or to pull the plug and let the patient finally find peace and relief. Although all of those who were around knew there was not much choice, nobody was willing to pull the plug, until Fr. Sonny Ramirez, a longtime family friend, told them Jun need not suffer anymore and that it was time to let him go in the grace of the Lord.

His wife called us four brothers who were abroad one by one before they pulled the plug, and with the cell phone placed on Jun’s ear, we said our last goodbyes, hoping that deep inside his frail and nearly lifeless body, he would hear our loving and comforting words one last time.

It was one of the saddest moments in my life, giving me the same pain as when my father died in 1996 and I couldn’t be with him in his last moments. Jun was the nice guy in our large family, and we all looked up to him as our second father – always ready to listen to our problems and always ready to extend a helping hand.

But I know that he was happy to have realized how his wife, children, mother, brothers, sisters and friends loved him. His wife and children stayed him all the time, and my mother and brothers and sisters came to visit him daily at the hospital, and those of us who couldn’t, spoke to him regularly through long distance phone. His friends from way back dropped by to cheer him up.

My three brothers in Australia and Saudi Arabia, and I who live in California, decided we have to be with Jun before he is finally laid to rest, and despite tough booking problems, we all managed to be there one day before the funeral. And for the first time in many years, we were all together – not just to mourn, but to celebrate the happy and meaningful life that my brother spent in this world.

His death brought us together again, and I know that there in the great beyond, Jun shared that joy. Each death, like all tragedies, strengthens the survivor, for whom life must move on, left with nothing but the wonderful memories of the departed.

Farewell, my dear brother. May you rest in eternal peace.

(valabelgas@aol.com)

Philippines needs two-party system

2007-06-05T10:45:00.000-07:00

February 2007

By Val G. Abelgas

Recent developments in the political front in the Philippines have once again shown the sad state of the homeland’s political party system, if one can call the state of political affairs in the country a system.

For lack of a clear agenda and platform, members of political parties are shifting allegiances and crossing fences to join fragile coalitions. In the days leading to the deadline for the filing of candidacy, we have seen many erstwhile opposition
leaders joining the administration’s so-called “Unity Ticket” while the ruling coalition, in a move to avert landslide defeat, is luring political leaders who have opposed the administration for years.

First to change alliance were former Senators Tito Sotto and Tessie Aquino-Oreta, who were among the staunchest defenders of former President Joseph Estrada during the impeachment trials of 2000 and until a couple of weeks ago, were the closest allies of the deposed leader. Then came Sen. Edgardo Angara, LDP president, who left the opposition because it has not assured him a slot in its Senate ticket. There was also actor Richard Gomez, who was pictured trying to convince Estrada to include him in the UNO slate just before he decided to join the Nationalist People’s Coalition to get a slot in the administration ticket.

Ever since the late President Ferdinand Marcos uprooted the Philippines’ two-party system by declaring martial law in 1972, there has never been a truly established political party with a consistent and established platform and ideology. Instead, we have several political parties whose roster of members change as often as the wind changes its direction.

These political parties align with other similarly situated political groupings to form coalitions, whose reason for unity is political exigency, rather than a commonality in political platform. As a result, government officials, including the President, are elected not because they offer a better program of government, but because they are either popular, they have the financial resources, or they are able to wheel-and-deal with other political groupings, or all of the above.

The snap election for the presidency in 1986 between Marcos and Cory Aquino was the last election held where issues were clear to the electorate. The issues then were simple: Did you want dictatorship or democracy?

There were only two parties and two candidates: the Kilusang Bagong Lipunan of President Marcos, and the PDP-Laban of Cory Aquino (Vice President Salvador H. Laurel ran under the Unido banner). Those who were happy with the dictatorship voted for Marcos. Those who wanted a new era of freedom voted for Aquino. Those who couldn’t care less voted for the person who gave them money.

Prior to martial law, there were only two major political parties – the Nacionalista Party and the Liberal Party. These parties alternately ruled Philippine politics from the time the Philippines was still a commonwealth of the United States until Marcos declared martial law, and effectively eliminated the two parties.

The Nacionalista Party (NP), which was founded in 1907, advocated “immediate independence” although the leaders acted more like pro-Americans instead of freedom fighters, with the Americans suspecting the independence agenda was merely for getting votes. The party produced five presidents — Manuel L. Quezon, Sergio Osmena, Ramon Magsaysay, Carlos P. Garcia, and Ferdinand Marcos.

Marcos and Magsaysay were former Liberal Party members but shifted party affiliation prior to the convention.

The Liberal Party sprang from the “liberal wing” of the Nacionalista Party, becoming a full-fledged party in 1946 under the leadership of Manuel Roxas. The LP produced three presidents – Roxas, the first president of the Third Republic; Elpidio Quirino and Diosdado Macapagal.

During martial law, LP stalwarts Senators Benigno “Ninoy” Aquino Jr., Gerry Roxas and Jovito Salonga carried the fight against Marcos. In 1978, Ninoy Aquino and Sen. Lorenzo Tanada organized the Lakas ng Bayan (Laban). Ninoy spearheaded the Laban Metro Manila slate in the rigged Assembly elections, where the Imelda Marcos-led KBL swept the Laban team. When Ninoy left for the US, his brother-in-law, Rep. Jose “Peping” Cojuangco was tasked to lead the party. The Laban party later merged with the Mindanao-based Pilipino Democratic Party of then Cagayan Mayor Aquilino Pimentel Jr., forming the PDP-Laban, which is still headed by Pimentel.

Laurel had his UNIDO and ran as Cory’s vice presidential candidate in the 1986 snap elections.
The PDP-Laban had for its platform “democratize power and socialize wealth” but when Cory Aquino became president in 1986, all these ideals were relegated to the usual elitist agenda that spawned political patronage, political dynasties and ultimately graft and corruption. During this time, former Marcos officials Francisco Tatad, Juan Ponce Enrile and Blas Ople formed their own parties – Tatad, the Grand Alliance for Democracy (GAD), whose leaders included Juan Ponce Enrile and Joseph Estrada; while Ople, together with Laurel and Enrile, tried to revive the defunct Nacionalista Party.

In 1991, Danding Cojuangco formed the Partido Pilipino (Nationalist People’s Party) to support his presidential bid in 1992, the year six other candidates – with their own political parties – contested the presidency. The other candidates were Ramon Mitra of Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino (LDP), Fidel Ramos (People Power Movement), Miriam Defensor Santiago (Reformist Party), Imelda Marcos (KBL), and two other candidates with their own parties.
Ramos won the election by a narrow margin (23.6%) over Santiago (19.4%), with Joseph Estrada, who ran with Cojuangco, winning the vice presidency by a landslide. The Partido Pilipino branched into two parties: Cojuangco’s National People’s Coalition (NPC), and Estrada’s Partido ng Masang Pilipino (PMP).

In 1998, there were 11 presidential candidates, although only seven were considered serious candidates: Estrada (Partido ng Masang Pilipino-LDP-NPC), Joe de Venecia (Lakas-NUCD), Raul Roco (Aksyon Demorkatiko), Lito Osmena (Probinsiya Muna Development Initiative – Promdi), Alfredo Lim (LP), Renato de Villa (Reforma), Miriam Defensor Santiago (People’s Reform Party) and Juan Ponce Enrile (NP).

Estrada won by a big margin, getting 46.4 percent of the votes despite the big field, with Arroyo, who ran with De Venecia, winning the vice presidency also by a big margin.

As in previous post-election scenarios, the political parties made realignments for political exigency, with Estrada’s PMP, Cojuangco’s NPC, Pimentel’s PDP-Laban, Angara’s LDP, and Santiago’s Reformist Party forming the ruling coalition, and De Venecia’s Lakas-NUCD, Roco’s Aksyon Demokratiko, Osmena’s Promdi, De Villa’s Reforma, and the Liberal Party coalescing as the opposition.

When Estrada was ousted by People Power II, the two coalitions switched roles, but suddenly, Cojuangco’s NPC became a member of the administration coalition. As the 2004 presidential election neared, the parties began to realign again. Reforma, Promdi and Aksyon Demokratiko bolted the coalition and supported Roco’s candidacy. The NPC stayed on for a while as Cojuangco made some deals with Arroyo, but after the Davide impeachment fizzled out, Cojuangco’s NPC made known its desire to field its own presidential candidate, who obviously was actor Fernando Poe Jr.

In the 2004 presidential elections, there were at least three coalitions that contested the presidency — the LDP-NPC-PMP-PDP Laban-Reformist coalition, the Lakas-NUCD coalition, and the Aksyon-Reforma-Promdi coalition. The Liberal Party joined Arroyo’s coalition (Lakas-NUCD). At least two other candidates ran as virtual independents — Sen. Ping Lacson and Bro. Eddie Villanueva of the Jesus is Lord Movement, which spearheaded the Bangon Pilipinas, a political group but not really a coalition.

The instability of these political coalitions reflects, and contributes to, the instability of the country’s political system. Because these parties were formed primarily for the self-aggrandizement of its founders and leaders, they are devoid of ideology and platform of government. The parties change stands on issues, and shift loyalties as often as political exigency demands.

There lies the problem with not having parties based on ideals or principles. Because they are based on the self-serving agenda of the leaders, parties tend to change platforms depending on what can win them votes at the time, or what can be advantageous to their own objectives. The needs of the people that they are supposed to serve are often overlooked. And because the members join the parties not because of the party’s ideals and principles, there is no loyalty on their part and they become political butterflies, moving from one party to another in the same manner that parties move from one coalition to another. If the parties and the party members cannot be loyal to their own ideals or their own parties, how can they be expected to be loyal to the people?

Great nations have great two-party systems. The United States have the Republican and Democratic parties, which have been in existence for more than a century and are based in long-standing platforms and principles. Great Britain had the Conservatives (Tories) and the Liberals (Whigs) since the 7th and 18th century. A third major party, the Labour Party, which is now the ruling party, led by Prime Minister Tony Blair, emerged in 1900. Post-war Japan has had two major parties – the Liberal Democrats (1955) and the Social Democrats (1945).

The need for a two-party system becomes even more paramount in the proposed parliamentary system, which has proved to be successful in countries with strong two-party systems. Great political parties are able to discipline erring members, because corrupt and incompetent officials will weaken them.

To build a more stable political system, the Philippines’ political leaders will have to reassess their stand on important issues and ideologies, organize strong parties based on these ideals and principles, and impose rigid party discipline to strengthen their political foundation. Hopefully, with parties based on clear platforms and principles, the country’s political system will be stabilized, and the foundation laid for the building of a truly Strong Republic, one that is cognizant of the general well-being of the people.

(valabelgas@aol.com)