Sunday, November 8, 2009


From animism to naturalistic pantheism, there are various belief systems that deify the natural world. But should a fervent belief in the need to fight climate change be given the same legal protection as an actual religion? A London judge said yes, ruling this week that environmentalism should carry the same legal weight as religion under Britain's employment laws.

The case involved Tim Nicholson, 42, who was laid off last year from his job as head of sustainability at Grainger Plc, Britain's largest residential-property company. Nicholson contended he was laid off because his views on the environment were not shared by Grainger executives, and he sued the company for unfair dismissal under Britain's six-year-old Religion and Belief Regulations, which make it unlawful to discriminate against a person on the grounds of their religious or philosophical beliefs. Grainger argued that Nicholson's climate-change convictions did not qualify for protection under the law. But in a landmark ruling on Nov. 3, Justice Michael Burton found that "a belief in man-made climate change, and the alleged resulting moral imperatives, is capable, if genuinely held, of being a philosophical belief for the purpose of [the 2003 law]."

Nicholson, who now works for an organization lobbying for greener health care, tells TIME he feels the decision is a victory for those pushing for corporate responsibility. "Organizations that already take sustainability seriously, they have nothing to fear from this judgment," he says. "There are so many positive reasons why companies should take steps to reduce their consumption of fossil fuels, this decision only adds to an already substantial list."

Nicholson's case came about because of a peculiarity of British law. Prior to 2003, Britain had no statute that protected employees from religious discrimination. The Religion and Belief Regulations were meant to remedy this. But because the law offered only a vague definition of "religious or philosophical beliefs," it has fallen to judges to interpret it and define which beliefs deserve protection. In the most important ruling so far, Burton's generous interpretation of the law will have far-ranging and complicated ramifications, employment experts say.

Caroline Doran, an employment specialist at the London law firm Sprecher Grier Halberstam LLP, tells TIME the decision will "result in a tidal wave of philosophical-related litigation to employment tribunals." And because employees claiming unfair dismissal on the grounds of discrimination are entitled to much higher payouts than those with standard claims, the strain on employers could be immense.

"The concept of philosophical beliefs is so wide that it will open a Pandora's box for employers and give individuals a foothold to obtain six- and seven-figure 'jackpot' payouts," Doran says. "It is only a matter of time before an employee with a marginal philosophical belief will get a million-pound payout after his exceptional views were not appreciated by management or colleagues."
But not all experts agree. Victoria Phillips, head of employment law at the London firm Thompson's Solicitors, says Burton's ruling laid out several tests to prevent frivolous claims: to qualify for protection, beliefs must focus on a weighty and substantial aspect of human life, they must have a certain level of seriousness and importance, and they must be worthy of respect in a democratic society and not be in conflict with the fundamental rights of others. Along with climate change, "the political philosophies of socialism, Marxism, communism or free-market capitalism might qualify," Burton said in his ruling. But he noted that fringe beliefs — the belief in the supreme nature of Jedi knights, for example — would not qualify for protection.

"I certainly would advise companies to be careful about how they treat employees with strongly held political beliefs, but I think common sense will prevail," Phillips says. "There were similar concerns among employers about a flood of claims when a law was brought in to protect whistle-blowers in 1998. But the courts have been pretty astute at seeing through bogus claims. I suspect a similar situation with this law."

Nicholson had argued that he was dismissed because his views on how to make the company environmentally sustainable had put him at odds with other senior staff at Grainger and had been ignored by managers. The Independent newspaper reported that Nicholson ran afoul of executives when he complained that the CEO had ordered an employee to fly from London to Ireland to deliver a BlackBerry he had left behind. Nicholson must now appear before a British employment tribunal with his former employers and prove that he was laid off because of his environmental beliefs, not corporate restructuring. The tribunal will then decide if he's eligible for compensation.

Dave Butler, Grainger's director of corporate affairs, said in a statement that the decision to lay off Nicholson was driven solely by "the operational needs of the company during a period of extraordinary market turbulence. Grainger rejects outright any suggestion that there was any other motivation relating to Mr. Nicholson's beliefs or otherwise."

Whatever the outcome of the case, climate campaigners can at least take heart in knowing that in British employment courts, if nowhere else, the earth is considered a holy place.

Environmentalism, the British Religion

Environmentalism, the British Religion

Wednesday, August 19, 2009


By Conrado de QuirosPhilippine Daily InquirerFirst Posted 01:05:00 08/20/

Maraming nag-text sa akin matapos mabasa ’yung kolum ko noong Lunes, “Ser, isa pa nga.”

Bakit nga hindi? Bitin nga ang isa, parang beer. Agosto pa rin naman, at buwan pa rin ng Wika. At bukas ay Agosto 21, isang makasaysayang araw na humihiling—hindi, nag-uutos—na gunitain sa paraang malapit sa kamalayang Pilipino. Ano pa ang mas malapit sa kamalayang Pilipino kundi wikang Pilipino? Kahit na pang-text lang ang alam kong Pilipino.

Hindi mahirap hanapin ang paksa para dyan. Iisa ang tampok na elemento sa Agosto 21, isang elemento na tampok din ngayon sa pagkawala. Yan ang katapangan.

Matapang tayo noon, duwag tayo ngayon.

Katapangan ang buod ng mga katagang, “Hindi ka nag-iisa.” Yan ang mga katagang umalingawngaw sa buong bayan matapos pagbabarilin si Ninoy Aquino sa airport noong Agosto 21, 1983. Sa buong panahon ng pagkaburol n’ya, at lalong-lalo na sa pagdala sa kanya sa huling hantungan, yan ang madasaling binubulong, o galit na sinisigaw, ng taongbayan: “Hindi ka nag-iisa.”

Ano nga ba ang ibig sabihin ng “Hindi ka nag-iisa?”

Simple lang. Hindi ka nag-iisa dahil, kagaya mo, handa rin kaming magsakripisyo para sa bayan. Kagaya mo, handa rin kaming kumilos para sa bayan. Kagaya mo, handa rin kaming mamatay para sa bayan.

Mga katagang sinabi, o pinahiwatig, natin noon hindi lang kay Ninoy kundi sa lahat ng nagbuwis ng buhay sa panahon ng kadiliman—marami sa kanila ay nasa Wall of Remembrance ng Bantayog ng mga Bayani ngayon. ’Yan din ang isa pang kahulugan ng “Hindi ka nag-iisa.” Hindi lang si Ninoy ang nagbuwis ng buhay para sa bayan noong panahong ’yon, marami pa.

Sino na lang ang nagsasabi ng “Hindi ka nag-iisa” ngayon? O sino na lang ang nagsasabi n’yan ngayon na me gano’ng kahulugan? Dahil pag naririnig ko ang “Hindi ka nag-iisa” ngayon, ang dating sa ’kin ay parang death wish na lang ng Pinoy. Tipong: “O, sige, isali n’yo na rin ako sa kabaong. Tama na, sobra na, ayoko na. Suko na ini. ”

Paano tayo umabot sa gano’n? Paano tayo nawalan ng katapangan? O diretsuhin na natin, paano tayo naduwag?

Gusto ko sanang sabihing nabakla na siguro tayo, pero di lang sa magagalit sa akin ang mga kaibigan kong bakla kundi marami akong kilalang bakla na matapang. Nangunguna na d’yan si Lino Brocka na sa tindi ng galit sa mga kahibangan noon ni Manoling Morato ay sinigawan ng “Bakla!” Iilan lang ang kakilala kong makakatapat kay Brocka sa katapangan.

Ang nakikita na lang nating katapangan ngayon, at talaga namang laganap na, ay katapangan ng apog. Ang katapangangang yon ay wala ring pinipiling kampon, babae, lalaki o bakla. Equal opportunity, ika nga. Tapang ng apog ang kumikitil sa bayan, tapang ng apog ang pumapatay sa bayan. Tingnan mo ang mga nasa poder ngayon at tanong mo sa sarili kung may makikita ka ring katapat nila sa ganyang katapangan.

Pero yo’ng totoong katapangan, nasaan na?

Angal tayo ng angal, wala naman tayong ginagawa para tigilan ang kawalanghiyaan. Angal tayo ng angal, hindi naman tayo kumikilos para paayusin ang buhay.

Sino’ng inaasahan nating gagawa niyan? Ang Diyos, sa pamagitan ng pagbigay ng lupus o sakit ng tiyan sa pagkabondat sa mga taong bwisit sa buhay natin? Ang Amerika, na nagpapanggap na tagapagtanggol ng demokrasya sa buong mundo pero ayos lang na masikil ang kalayaan sa bansa ni Una? O “sila na lang,” ang ating mga kapitbahay na lang, ang ating mga tagapagtanggol na lang, dahil tayo ay me pamilya, dahil tayo ay kailangang maghanap-buhay, dahil tayo ay sobrang busy.

Sino ba ang walang pamilya? Kaya ka nga kumikilos ay para masilayan ng mga anak mo ang isang lipunang may liwanag at katarungan. Sino ba ang di kailangang maghanap-buhay? Kaya ka nga naghahanap ng buhay para di mo matagpuan ang patay—na pwedeng maging literal balang araw sa bangkay ng anak mo na lulutang-lutang sa ilog dahil ginawa n’ya ang di mo ginawa, ang di mo nagawa, ang di mo magawa. Dahil takot ka. Dahil busy ka.

Nakanino ba ang kapangyarihang hintuin ang katiwalian? Nakanino ba ang kapangyarihang hintuin ang pagbansot sa bayan? Di ba nasa atin? Di ba pag nagagalit tayo ay napipigilan nating bumili ng mamahaling jet ang mumurahing tao? Di pa kumikilos tayo ay napipigilan natin isulong ang Cha-cha ng mga taong di naman marunong sumayaw? Di ba pag pinapakita natin ang ating kapangyarihan ay napapatalsik natin ang mga taong kapit-tuko sa kapangyarihan?

Me mga nagsasabi na hindi naman tayo nawalan ng tapang, nawalan lang tayo ng paki. Gano’n din ’yon. Kaduwagan din yon. O higit pa ro’n. Dahil ngayon hindi ka lang takot mamatay, takot ka pang mabuhay.

Bukas, maraming mga pagtitipon-tipon sa paggunita ng makasaysayang Agosto 21. Isa na dyan ay ang prayer rally sa Ninoy statue sa Ayala na gaganapin sa ika-3:00 ng hapon hanggang gabi. Na ang hiling ng mga organizers ay kung maaari ay magsuot ng dilaw ang mga tao para ipakita ang pakikiramay, pagpupugay, at pakikiisa kay Cory. Hanep din tayong Pinoy ano: Dilaw ang kulay ng kaduwagan sa ibang bansa, dilaw ang kulay ng katapangan sa ating bansa.

Pwede kang sumama rito at sumigaw ng “Tama na, sobra na, palitan na” para sa kinabukasan ng mga anak mo. Pwede kang sumama rito para magsabi kay Inang Bayan, “Hindi ka nag-iisa,” handa rin kaming mamatay nang dahil sa ’yo, at higit na handang mabuhay nang para sa yo. Pwede kang sumama rito para ipakita na hindi pa nawawala ang katapangan sa bayan ko, binihag ka, ang dugo ng mga bayani ay nananalaytay sa mga ugat mo.

O pwede kang huwag sumama rito dahil ang bukang-bibig mo ngayon ay hindi na “Hindi ka nag-iisa” kundi “Bahala ka sa buhay mo.” Pwede kang huwag sumama rito dahil marami ka pang mahalagang gagawin, kagaya nang manuod ng “G.I Joe.” Pwede kang huwag sumama rito dahil mas okay sa yo ang maging patay kahit buhay pa kesa maging buhay kahit patay na. Pero kung gano’n:

Mag-isa ka.

Friday, July 10, 2009


(By Randy David
Philippine Daily InquirerFirst
Posted 23:55:00 07/10/2009)

Not too long ago, a couple of bishops of the Catholic Church who were attending an important meeting of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines (CBCP) were invited to have a meal with some Malacañang officials. The purpose of the meeting ostensibly was to brief the prelates on what the government was doing to address certain issues over which the Church had expressed some concern.

As they stood up from the table at the end of the meal, the bishops found themselves being given envelopes containing money. The Palace assistants mumbled that the cash was meant to cover “expenses” and “air fare.” One of the bishops, Archbishop Antonio Ledesma, who was the CBCP vice president at the time, politely refused the envelope. The media reported the incident, and Archbishop Ledesma confirmed that indeed it happened. The good bishop, one of the most decent men in the Church hierarchy today, must have been totally dismayed by this improper and insulting act. For he had traveled to Manila from Mindanao, where he is based, to attend the CBCP meeting, and not to confer with representatives of the President. There was no reason for them to pay his expenses.

But, presumably, for the men of the Palace, this was standard practice. A year later, it was the turn of legislators and a few chosen local government officials to be treated to the same presidential “generosity.” After attending a meeting in Malacañang, in which they were briefed about the Palace’s position on the looming impeachment case against President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, the guests were sent home with a small gift bag containing cash. Pampanga Gov. Eddie Panlilio, who was at the meeting, opened the bag after boarding his car, and found a half million pesos in cash. He was neither made to sign for it, nor was he informed what the money was for. Later, he made an effort to return the money, but no one in Malacañang was prepared to receive it.

Apart from the ordinary languages we use in our daily life, there are other means available for communicating meaning to other people. The most significant of these, the sociologist Niklas Luhmann says, are truth, power, love and money. The function of these “symbolic media of communication,” as he calls them, is the same as that of language—to ensure a common understanding among participants in an interaction, and to prompt the other into making a desired selection from a set of possible actions.

To know this is to begin to understand how “money talks,” why “truth will set us free,” how “power corrupts,” and why “love is the language of the heart.” In modern society, these symbolic media are assigned their specific spheres, where they facilitate the transmission and processing of sometimes very complex messages. Truth becomes the language of science (or of religion in early societies), power becomes the medium of politics, love (or friendship) that of the family, and money the principal medium of economic exchange.

In modern societies where social relationships are highly differentiated, people take care not to switch from one medium to another within the same relationship. To do so would be to sow confusion. Thus, you do not give a priest some money in the confessional box to pay for your sins. You are not allowed to buy votes. Likewise, it is not regarded as good form to invoke love or friendship to gain acceptance for a political program. You cannot use love as payment for a house or a car without putting your identity and self-respect in doubt. And you cannot use power to define the truth, or to secure love, just as you cannot buy truth and love.

The surest sign of dysfunction in any relationship or institutional system is the employment of an extraneous medium for communicating and directing meanings. A parent tries to stabilize the love of his children by lavishing them with money and material things. A scientist shapes his truths according to the requirements of the powerful or in response to market demands. A politician wins public office by using wealth rather than the power of persuasion. A judge offers his decisions to the highest bidder, or bends the law to accommodate political power. And a businessman enlists the help of a politician to ensure the success of his enterprise, or to prevent it from being taken away from him.

It is the misfortune of our society that our leaders cannot grasp the systemic nature of our recurrent crises. Our political system has been hobbled by our inability to elect leaders with unquestioned legitimacy who can inspire the nation with their vision. Our economic system is heavily politicized and dominated by parasitic rent-seekers. Our judicial system is so severely compromised it cannot muster enough authority and credibility to settle disputes and persistent conflicts. Our families and our communities have quietly borne the brunt of these crises and, unless we act now, we may soon wake up to find we’re no longer a nation.

These problems are not unique to us. They are an integral part of the troubled transition to modernity. But, the conditions that would hasten this passage are already upon us. We only need to focus our collective will on the immediate tasks that lie ahead. We can begin by ensuring that we have credible and orderly elections in 2010. Yet, clearly, we cannot do that until the Arroyo regime finally accepts that its time is over.

Wednesday, June 24, 2009


The history of the concepts of politics can be equated, as to periods, of the existence of humans in this world. As such, the study of politics is very dynamic because of the continuous changes in the society. From the ancient times, during the reign of the various European states, the rise of the American democracy, the events during the two world wars and the present events in various technological advancements, the study of politics is continually attuning to the constant changes in the society.

Traditionally, politics is defined as the art and science of government. Even today’s students are usually referring to the traditional definition when studying politics. It is very obvious that even with the coming of the most recent and modern definition or view on politics, there are still a number of people viewing politics in its traditional definition. There’s really nothing wrong about this since in the field of public governance, politics is very patent. Our daily existence is affected, directly or indirectly, by the acts of the government.

Consider the following basic concepts of politics:

1. It is the process of making government policies. How the policies came into being, its formulation, its implementation and others.

2. It also includes the decision-making and decision enforcing processes in any group that makes and enforces rules for its members.

3. It also deals with public affairs, that is, the distribution of goods and services to satisfy the demands of the public.

4. Politics is also concerned with conflicts and their resources.

Historically, the term politics had its etymology from the Greek word “polis” which refers to the ancient city-states of which Athens and Sparta were the more prominent.

Finally, the modern day usage denotes a process in the political system in which the goals of that system are selected and ordered in terms of priority in the allocation of resources.

Friday, June 5, 2009


Let us think a million times....
Here's the full text.

House Resolution 1109 (re: Constitutional Amendment or Revision)

(The House of Representatives recently issued a resolution asking that members of Congress — which, in a bicameral set-up, is composed of the Senate and the House of Representatives — convene to consider amendments or revisions of the Constitution. A stated purpose is to highlight a justiciable controversy, to allow the Supreme Court to decide, whether the Constitutional amendment/revision by Congress should be done by both chambers voting separately. Full text of House Resolution No. 1109 )

House Resolution No. 1109


WHEREAS, there are proposals to amend or revise the 1987 Constitution, which is presently enforced, but any of such proposals cannot be considered, heard, debated, approved or disapproved, unless any of the modes expressly provided by Article XVII of the present Constitution is adopted;

WHEREAS, adopting a mode of amending or revising the Constitution, as mandated by said Article XVII is a condition precedent, a pre-requisite, before specific proposals to amend or revise the Constitution could be considered by the Members of Congress, convened to exercise the constitutionally ordained power to amend or revise the Constitution.

WHEREAS, there is a recognized distinction between the exercise of legislative powers of Congress from the exercise of the constituent power to amend or revise the Constitution;

WHEREAS, Congress, in the exercise of its legislative power as provided in Article VI of the 1987 Constitution, cannot amend or revise the Constitution, but it is through the exercise of its constituent power under Article XVII, Section 1 of the Constitution that “any amendment to, or revision of the Constitution may be proposed, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members”;

WHEREAS, while the prescribed method of enacting constitutional change in the 1935, 1973, and 1987 Constitutions are different from the method of enacting ordinary legislation, there is a very distinct and notable difference between the 1935 and the 1987 Constitution, which respectively provides as follows:

The 1935 Constitution:
“The Congress in joint session assembled, by a vote of three-fourths of all Members of the Senate and of the House of Representatives voting separately may propose amendments to this Constitution or a call a convention for that purpose.”
The 1987 Constitution:
“Any amendment to, or revision of, this Constitution may be proposed by: (1) The Congress, upon a vote of three-fourths of all its Members; or (2) A constitutional convention.”
WHEREAS, it is to be emphasized and underscored that some essential words and phrases in the aforequoted 1935 Constitution were deleted and no longer contained in the aforequoted 1987 Constitution, such that the “amendments by deletion” are as follows:
1. The phrase “in joint session assembled” in the 1935 Constitution was deleted;
2. The phrase that the Senate and the House of Representatives, voting separately” was also deleted;
3. The percentage of voting three-fourths of the respective membership of each House (the Senate and the House of Representatives) treated separately has also been deleted and substituted with a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of Congress (i.e., ¾ of the “members of Congress” without distinction as to which institution of Congress they belong to).
WHEREAS, the intention of the amendments of the 1935 Constitution by deletions of certain words and phrases thereon by the 1987 Constitution are clear and manifest as underscored in the preceding WHEREAS Clauses and by such deletions, the meaning and application of the corresponding provisions of the 1987 Constitution on Amendments and Revision have been changed. There are however oppositors claiming adverse legal interests who claim that, notwithstanding that the express, clear, and unambiguous provision of Article XVII Section 1 of the 1987 Constitution that any amendment to, or revision of the 1987 Constitution that any amendment to, or revision of the 1987 Constitution shall be upon a vote of three-fourths of all the Members of Congress (i.e., not three-fourths of each House voting separately as the oppositors contend), a justiciable controversy involving the active antagonistic assertion of alleged legal rights by the oppositors, on one side, and the denial thereof by the proponents of this Resolution, on the other side, shall ripen for judicial determination as and when this Resolution calling upon the Members of Congress to convene in exercise of its constituent power is filed, heard, and approved.
WHEREAS, while no specific proposals to amend or revise the present Constitution could formally be given due course unless and until this call to convene Members of Congress, as provided herein, is effected. It is hereby pledged and covenanted by the proponents of this Resolution, that by their signatures hereto that whatever constitutional changes may be proposed at the appropriate time, preferably after the constitutional issues may be proposed at the appropriate time, preferably after the constitutional issues of construction and interpretation by the Honorable Supreme Court of the justiciable controversy that may arise shall have been resolved with finality that:
1. The term of office of the incumbent President and Vice-President shall not be extended;
2. The term of office of Senators, Congressmen, Governors, Mayors, and other elected officials whose term of office shall expire in 2010 shall not be extended;
3. The term of office of the twelve (12) Senators who were elected in 2007 for a six (6) year term ending in 2013 shall not be shortened and they shall be allowed to finish their term;
4. That there shall be elections in 2010.
WHEREAS, there is a specific proposal that for the Philippines to be internationally competitive in attracting foreign investments and technology transfers that the economic provisions of the Constitution is proposed to be amended in an appropriate manner, but such specific proposal to amend the present Constitution cannot be formally presented and resolved until the mode for amending or revising the Constitution is convened and made operational through the application of Article XVII of the present Constitution.

List of those who signed HR 1109:

Vincent P.. Crisologo, Quezon City
Matias V. Defensor, Jr., Quezon City
Mary Ann L. Susano, Quezon City
Nanette Castelo-Daza, Quezon City
Bienvenido M. Abante Jr., Manila
Jaime C. Lopez, Manila
Maria Zenaida B. Angping, Manila
Maria Theresa B. David, Manila
Amado S. Bagatsing, Manila
Daniel R. De Guzman, Marikina City
Marcelino R. Teodoro, Marikina City
Eduardo C. Zialcita, Parañaque City
Henry M. Dueñas, Jr., Taguig
Alvin S. Sandoval, Malabon City-Navotas City
Jose Antonio F. Roxas, Pasay City
Oscar G. Malapitan, Caloocan City
Mary Mitzi L. Cajayon, Caloocan City
Roman T. Romulo, Pasig City
Rexlon T. Gatchalian, Valenzuela City
Magtanggol T. Gunigundo I, Valenzuela City
Manuel S. Agyao, Kalinga
Elias C. Bulut, Jr., Apayao
Mauricio G. Domogan, Baguio City
Samuel M. Dangwa, Benguet
Solomon R. Chungalao, Ifugao
Thomas M. Dumpit Jr., La Union
Victor Franciso C. Ortega, La Union
Arthur F. Celeste, Pangasinan
Conrado M. Estrella III, Pangasinan
Marcos O. Cojuangco, Pangasinan
Victor F. Agbayani, Pangasinan
Ma. Rachel J. Arenas, Pangasinan
Eric D. Singson, Ilocos Sur
Ronald V. Singson, Ilocos Sur
Roque R. Ablan, Jr., Ilocos Norte
Cecilia S. Luna], Abra
Florencio L. Vargas, Cagayan
Manuel N. Mamba, Cagayan
Junie E. Qua, Quirino
Carlo Oliver D. Diasnes, Batanes
Rodolfo T. Albano, Isabela
Edwin C. Uy, Isabela
Jose V. Yap, Tarlac
Jeci A. Lapus, Tarlac
Monica Louise Prieto-Teodoro, Tarlac
Lorna C. Silverio, Bulacan
Pedro M. Pancho, Bulacan
Reylina G. Nicolas, Bulacan
Ma. Victoria Sy-Alvarado, Bulacan
Arturo C. Robes, San Jose del Monte City
Albert C. Garcia, Bataan
Herminia B. Roman, Bataan
Joseph Gilbert F. Violago, Nueva Ecija
Ma. Milagros H. Magsaysay, Zambales
Antonio M. Diaz, Zambales
Aurelio D. Gonzales, Jr., Pampanga
Juan Miguel M. Arroyo, Pampanga
Anna York P. Bondoc, Pampanga
Carmelo F. Lazatin, Pampanga
Danilo E. Suarez, Quezon
Wilfrido Mark C. Enverga, Quezon
Michael John R. Duavit, Rizal
Adeline Rodriguez-Zaldarriaga, Rizal
Angelito C. Gatlabayan, Antipolo City
Roberto V. Puno, Antipolo City
Eileen Ermita-Buhain, Batangas
Mark Llandro L. Mendoza, Batangas
Victoria H.. Reyes, Batangas
Jesus Crispin C. Remulla, Cavite
Elpidio F. Barzaga, Jr., Cavite
Maria Evita R. Arago, Laguna
Edgar S. San Luis, Laguna
Antonio C. Alvarez, Palawan
Carmencita O. Reyes, Marinduque
Eleandro Jesus
F. Madrona, Romblon
Ma. Amelita C. Villarosa, Occidental Mindoro
Rodolfo G. Valencia, Oriental Mindoro
Rizalina Seachon-Lanete, Masbate
Narciso R. Bravo, Jr., Masbate
Antonio T. Kho, MasbateAl
Francis C. Bichara, Albay
Reno G. Lim, Albay
Luis R. Villafuerte, Camarines Sur
Felix R. Alfelor, Jr., Camarines Sur
Diosdado Ignacio Jose Maria Macapagal-Arroyo, Camarines Sur
Joseph A. Santiago, Catanduanes
Jose G. Solis, Sorsogon
Florencio T. Miraflores, Aklan
Genaro M. Alvarez, Jr., Negros Occidental
Jeffrey P. Ferrer, Negros Occidental
Ignacio T. Arroyo, Jr., Negros Occidental
Jose Carlos V. Lacson, Negros Occidental
Alfredo D. Marañon III, Negros Occidental
Raul T. Gonzalez, Jr., Iloilo City
Niel C. Tupas, Jr., Iloilo
Ferjenel G. Biron, Iloilo
Arthur Defensor, Sr., Iloilo
Judy J. Syjuco, Iloilo
Janette L. Garin, Iloilo
Joaquin Carlos Rahman A. Nava, Guimaras
Fredenil H. Castro, Capiz
Roberto C. Cajes, Bohol
Edgardo M. Chatto, Bohol
Pryde Henry A. Teves, Negros Oriental
Pablo P. Garcia, Cebu
Pablo John F. Garcia, Cebu
Ramon H. Durano VI, Cebu
Nerissa Corazon Soon-Ruiz, Cebu
Benhur L. Salimbangon, Cebu
Eduardo R. Gullas, Cebu
Antonio V. Cuenco, Cebu City
Raul V. Del Mar, Cebu City
Roger G. Mercado, Southern Leyte
Eufrocino M. Codilla, Sr., Leyte
Carmen L. Cari, Leyte
Andres D. Salvacion Jr., Leyte
Trinidad G. Apostol, Leyte
Ferdinand Martin G. Romualdez,
LeyteReynaldo S. Uy, Samar
Sharee Ann T. Tan, Samar
Teodolo M. Coquilla, Eastern Samar
Paul R. Daza, Northern Samar
Emil L. Ong, Northern Samar
Glenn A. Chong, Biliran
Rosendo S. Labadlabad, Zamboanga del Norte
Cecilia G. Jalosjos-Carreon, Zamboanga del Norte
Cesar G. Jalosjos, Zamboanga del Norte
Victor J. Yu, Zamboanga del Sur
Antonio H. Cerilles, Zamboanga del Sur
Dulce Ann K. Hofer, Zamboanga Sibugay
Vicente F. Belmonte, Jr., Lanao del Norte
Abdullah D. Dimaporo, Lanao del Norte
Rolando A. Uy, Cagayan de Oro City
Marina P. Clarete, Misamis Occidental
Herminia M. Ramiro, Misamis Occidental
Yevgeny Vicente B. Emano, Misamis Oriental
Pedro P. Romualdo, Camiguin
Candido P. Pancrudo Jr., Bukidnon
Franklin P. Bautista, Davao del Sur
Marc Douglas C. Cagas IV, Davao del Sur
Arrel R. Olaño, Davao del Norte
Antonio F. Lagdameo, Jr., Davao del Norte
Isidro T. Ungab, Davao City
Vincent J. Garcia, Davao City
Prospero Nograles, Davao City
Thelma Z. Almario, Davao Oriental
Nelson L. Dayanghirang, Davao Oriental
Rommel C. Amatong, Compostela Valley
Manuel E. Zamora, Compostela Valley
Datu Pax S. Mangudadatu, Sultan Kudarat
Arnulfo F. Go, Sultan Kudarat
Emmylou Taliño-Mendoza, Cotabato
Bernardo F. Piñol, Jr., Cotabato
Glenda B. Ecleo, Dinagat Islands
Philip A. Pichay, Surigao del Sur
Florencio C. Garay, Surigao del Sur
Francisco T. Matugas, Surigao del Norte
Guillermo A. Romarate, Jr., Surigao del Norte
Edelmiro A. Amante, Agusan del Norte
Jose S. Aquino II, Agusan del Norte
Pangalian M. Balindong, Lanao del Sur
Faysah Omaira M. Dumarpa, Lanao del Sur
Yusop H. Jikiri, Sulu
Munir M. Arbison, Sulu
Simeon Datumanong, Maguindanao
Nur G. Jaafar, Tawi-Tawi
Narciso D. Santiago III,
Alliance for Rural Concerns
Edgar L. Valdez, Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives
Ernesto C. Pablo, Association of Philippine Electric Cooperatives
Robert Raymund M. Estrella, Abono
Nicanor M. Briones, Agricultural Sector Alliance of the Philippines, Inc.

Sunday, May 10, 2009


I've been in the public service for the last 17 years when I started as an SK Chairman, Barangay Kagawad and on my second term as Punong Barangay of Kiwalan, Iligan City. For more than a decade in the local governance, I've been an actual witness to this beautiful City's politics. Probably there are those in the political animal kingdomship who may say that they have stayed almost a half century in Iligan's politics and may probably assert that they can better say about the dynamics of Iligan local politics.

In my case, I may share my humble analysis of some of the basic points about Iligan politics. In all of those years that I've been in public service spanning three City Mayors, I would say that our beloved city's politics is very dismal because it's very traditional.

All political issues in Iligan everytime local elections are coming, they are just recycled of issues of the past defeated politicians. It is a repeat with the former villain is now the hero, and pretty well sure that in the future will become a villain. Balos balos Pilar as they say.

Issues like nepotism controlling the departments, family members in various elected posts, gambling and drug issues, cartel of selected contractors and suppliers, payroll of unknown aliens lurking in the fields of City Hall and all the others everyday we heard being lambasted in the local media outlets. And all these issues have been staying in local politics since the time of the former Mayors with their opponents becoming the new Mayor and the latter now being attacked with the same subjects he exhorted before.

Because they are recycled and redundant, lip servicing is very clear in Iligan City's local politics. To us of the internet generation, it's already an utter disgust hearing some politicians who have already mastered the art of lip servicing. Like a magicians, they can make white black and vice-versa. To me they looked like an old clown jesting in stage, making fun of the already recycled or rehash local political issues.

Nothing's new actually. Nothing new because these political clown making some so much lip servicing have been there even before the second world war.

That is why I would say that lip servicing have done no good to the development of Iligan City. So much have been invested on petty polticking instead of investing on hope and opportunity for the City of Iligan.

I tell you, before the second world war, there are only two famous streets in Iligan, and these are Quezon Avenue and Aguinaldo Avenue. Now, 2009, still we only have two famous streets, still Quezon and Aguinaldo Avenue. In fact we are the only highly urbanized city in the whole country where our political system is traditional and obsolete. Iligan remains to be a living mummy in local governance. We have good leaders but we are using an old and obsolete system making our development a mummified being pre-dated before the second world war. Look at how we are electing our City Councilors, we are still electing them at large when other cities have already subdivided their city's into districts in order to make a proper and direct representation and distribution of the government's resources attuning to the increasing population and demands of the people.

In this view, it's time for our people to be awakened and be aware of what's going on in our City. It is needed at present, the education and the inculcation of values in the right selection and the political recruitment of our local leaders that will bring real action and concrete development to the City, instead of that aged and dreaded lip servicing of our mummified politicians of the long past.