Four Steps Closer To Conflict/War With China

The United States hasn’t really permanently left the Philippines since the PH-US Military Bases Agreement ended in 1992.  Thanks to the 2014 Enhanced Defense Cooperation Agreement (EDCA), the U.S. was given access to four air bases and one army base in the country.

The new agreement was a marriage of convenience between the two countries —but more so for the U.S. — in the light of the territorial conflicts in the South China Sea.  The Philippines is undoubtedly a strategic staging point for American military forces to pursue Uncle Sam’s geopolitical interests in the Asia-Pacific region.

Enter the Bongbong Marcos Administration. It has just granted America access to four additional “locations” (read: U.S. military bases) again under the guise of protecting our bilateral interests amid the escalating conflict with China.

WhileMarcos, Sr. fought for Philippine sovereignty and just compensation for America’s use of our land, Marcos, Jr. seems to be going in the opposite direction.  

The move by the PBBM Administration is also directly in conflict with the previous Duterte Administration when it comes to the Philippines being “a friend to all, an enemy to none” which ironically was also part of PBBM’s rhetorical inaugural speech.  While Duterte shied away from the country’s traditional relationship with the U.S. in favor of China, PBBM seems to be doing the exact opposite.

This, despite Bongbong’s ballyhooed in-person meetings with Joe Biden and Xi Jinping.  Who knows what went on in private during those meetings.

We can only second-guess the motivation or strategy behind the new PH-US Agreement under EDCA.  Perhaps time will eventually reveal its true purpose — and impact (positive and negative) on the country’s foreign relations.

In the meantime, based on our initial analysis of this new development, four new locations for U.S. military presence in the Philippines could only mean additional four steps closer to a possible escalation of conflict, and God forbid, war with China.

Vice President Leni Robredo’s Ignorance Of The Law

In her radio program last weekend, Vice President Leni Robredo insinuated that Solicitor General Jose Calida is using the Sedition complaint against her and others to try to oust her from office in favor of defeated vice presidential candidate Bongbong Marcos.

Describing Calida as “lawyering for the Marcoses,” Robredo said; “Alam na talagang talo na sa protesta kaya naghahanap na naman ng ibang paraan. Ito, hanggang sa pagsisinungaling…hanggang sa pagsisinungaling, gagawin.”

Robredo’s statement shows her ignorance of the law.

The 1987 Philippine Constitution cannot be more clear on the process of selecting a successor to a sitting Vice President if he or she becomes incapable of performing his or duties, or when removed from office through impeachment.

Section 9, Article VII of the Constitution states that if the Office of the Vice President becomes vacant, the President of the Philippines has the power to appoint a successor from among the members of Congress, subject to the confirmation of both Houses.

In case Robredo had a lapse of memory, may we remind her that Bongbong Marcos is no longer a member of Congress so he cannot be appointed by President Duterte.

The only way Marcos can become VP at this point is if he wins his still-pending electoral protest against Robredo.

The Vice President should be more concerned about the Constitutional process of selecting a successor because it is in the hands of Duterte. The President could always appoint Senator Imee Marcos or Senator Bong Go! And with Duterte’s super majority allies in Congress, this could very well be the scenario if and when Robredo quits or is ousted.

Who’s Afraid Of The Military ‘Taking Over’ The Bureau Of Customs?

In the U.S., the National Guard can be called upon to help individual states when lawlessness threatens the peace and security of the citizenry.  When there is civil unrest or when bad elements take advantage of calamities to commit criminal acts, the President or the Governors of the States have the military at their disposal.  It is not a militarization of any state but a Constitutional option granted its civilian leaders.

When President Rodrigo Duterte announced that he has asked the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) to temporarily take over the embattled Bureau of Customs (BOC), it was expected that the administration’s critics as well as the posturing politicians and Constitutionalists would cry foul.

But is there any real basis for the outcry?

It is easy to imagine armed members of the AFP sitting at desks and cubicles at the Bureau of Customs, pointing their guns at arriving container vessels and airline flights, or setting up barb wire fences in the perimeter of the Customs building or at the ports and airports in Manila and other cities. Those are scenarios that would be unlikely to happen.

In the first place, “taking over” is probably a misnomer.  A better way to describe Duterte’s order is “ensuring that the laws are followed.”

Anyone who will deny that the Bureau of Customs is one of the most corrupt government agencies under the present and past administrations is probably just coming out of hibernation.  Corruption threatens, and has threatened,  the peace and security of the Filipino people, and it smacks of utter lawlessness that none of the civilian leaders of the Bureau have eradicated.

When illegal drugs get past the scrutiny of officials or employees of  BOC — whether it is with full knowledge or plain incompetence — that poses a security threat to Filipino citizens. Illegal drugs are undisputedly the trigger for criminality  in this country.  But other than illegal drugs, what else may have escaped or could potentially escape the eyes of the law? We can only imagine guns and other ammunition illegally entering the country, posing grave threats to the citizens’ peace and security.

Nothing in Duterte’s order is beyond “Constitutional,” as critics and lawmakers like Senators Risa Hontiveros, Kiko Pangilinan, Antonio Trillanes and the incarcerated Leila De Lima have been accusing the President of.

The President is the Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces, but is also the sole authority who has jurisdiction over the Cabinet and all government agencies under the Executive Department.  In both capacities, Duterte is a “civilian.”  And as the Constitution clearly states, civilian authority prevails over military authority — strictly speaking, even under Martial Law declared by a civilian President.

Some critics have demeaned members of the military as having no competence or expertise in running civilian offices.  I don’t buy that argument.  Military men and women are among those who have undergone the most rigid of education and training, not just in academic affairs but also in terms of character formation.  Besides, in the case of BOC, what have the civilian leaders done over many decades to rid the agency of corruption and anomalies?

But the bottom line is that Duterte’s specific order is for a “temporary” take-over of BOC, at least until civilian officials and employees get their act together to restore the nation’s trust in a crucial agency like BOC.  I support the top to bottom overhaul of the Bureau.  The problem is more than just leadership.  It’s systemic.

Maybe, just maybe, Duterte should also order a temporary military take-over of government agencies like the Department of Health and the Commission on Elections. Perhaps the Dengvaxia issue will finally be resolved as will the election mess of 2016 and years prior.

So, who’s afraid of the military “take-over” of BOC?  I would imagine those who have a personal stake on its operations and the profitable goods that pass through its x-ray machines and document processes.

 

 

Why SWS Surveys Are Not 100% Reliable

Results of public opinion polls have long been used by politicians to boost their standing with their constituents, especially during election time. These polls are usually conducted by national research organizations that boast of their independence and integrity when it comes to  gauging public opinion.

One such organization in the Philippines is the SWS, or Social Weather Stations. It describes itself as a “self-supporting, non-subsidized, academic institute for survey research on topics of public interest…”

But two recent polls conducted by SWS put in question its claim of independence and of being an “unbiased source of primary data.”

The separate polls, conducted in the same exact period, surveyed voter preferences for potential Senatorial candidates in next year’s May elections.

In one survey, Senator Grace Poe took the No.1 spot; in the other, Senator Cynthia Villar topped the list of the supposed “Magic 12.”

Now we know that either poll was “commissioned” by outside parties — one by the Lakas-CMD, the other by Presidential Political Adviser Francis Tolentino.

We can only surmise that “commissioned” means that the survey questions were provided or authorized by the “commissioners,” or that the questions were “tailored” to meet desired poll outcomes.  We also assume that commissioning a survey comes with a price.

On its website, SWS confirms how it achieves financial sustainability:

Not that there is anything wrong with a research organization seeking outside funding.  However, as an organization charged with the delicate task of forming public opinion — especially when it comes to political activities — it should refrain from accepting funding from people or groups with vested interests on the outcome of the surveys.

It certainly skews the results when questions in any poll are dictated by interested parties, as what happened with the above-mentioned Senatorial polls.

If we can’t trust SWS with these Senatorial polls, how can we trust it when it comes to other polls of national concern?

Why It Wasn’t ‘Just A Kiss’.

It was to be expected that President Rodrigo Duterte’s critics would cry foul over the video tape of his meeting with the Filipino community in South Korea, wherein he is seen kissing a lady audience member on the lips.

Duterte supporters were also quick to defend the President, likening him to a rock star whose fans would pay whatever price to get close to their idol and show the most intimate of admiration. Some also argued that it was ‘just a kiss.’

Well, here’s why Politikal Pinoy thinks it wasn’t ‘just a kiss.’

Sure, Duterte can be likened to a rock star.  Everywhere he goes, he is mobbed by adoring fans.  But he is also President and he should always try — though it may be difficult for him sometimes — to give dignity to the office he holds.

The incident happened in a very public venue, covered by the international media.

It wasn’t ‘just a kiss.’

Anyone who has bothered to watch the entire viral video knows that prior to the kiss on the lips, the lady in question already shook and kissed the hand of the President, a very appropriate way of showing respect.  After she received the book gift, the lady left the podium.  Duterte called her back and that is when he asked for the kiss.

My question:  did the lady really have a choice but to agree?  Would she dare embarrass the President — her idol — by refusing to give in?

It sounds to me less of a case of rock star status, but the wielding of ‘power.’  Power of  an idol over a fan.  Power of a President.  Power of a man over a woman.  It sounds extreme, but it almost looks like bullying.

Some people have pointed out that the lady was ecstatic (kinilig).  Well, she didn’t have time to think of what happened. She probably felt she was the luckiest audience member for having been given the opportunity to be on stage with the President. It was an opportunity of a lifetime. An opportunity that had a price.

This reminds me of that leaked interview with U.S. President Donald Trump wherein he was heard saying (about women), ‘grab them by the p*ssy.’  Whether or not Trump had acted on that comment at anytime does not make it right.  It’s still wrong.  It wasn’t ‘just a comment.’

 

Who’s Going To Fact-Check The Fact Checkers?

For all that its worth, Rappler is reporting that Facebook has partnered with the online news source as well as Vera Files to fact-check news on the Internet. (There is no announcement thus far coming directly from FB).

Of course Rappler CEO Maria Ressa and Vera Files stakeholder Ellen Tordesillas would be quick to  include this in their “credentials.”

Ironically, wasn’t Ressa critical of Facebook at one point, even proclaiming to the world that it’s time “to take back the Internet,” as if she owned it?

If indeed, the Facebook ‘partnership’ — whatever that means — is true, it behooves upon both Rappler and Vera Files to quickly decline this bedroom relationship.  It’s pure and simple conflict of interest.

Rappler which insists that it is a legitimate news media is not exempt from being fact-checked.  Rappler itself has been a source of fake or inaccurate news.  Remember when Rapplerette Pia Ranada reported that Nikki Prieto-Teodoro was going to appointed by President Rodrigo Duterte as the new DSWD Chief?

Vera Files, on the other hand, is a group of journalists who are also connected with the news media.  Tordesillas is a columnist of Malaya and has gone public many times about her disdain for Duterte.  At one Senate hearing, she accused Duterte of being the No. 1 source of fake news.

At best, the FB-Rappler-Vera Files ‘partnership’ is self-serving for the local groups and could eventually come back to haunt FB.

Who’s going to fact-check the fact-checkers?

It’s unclear what this ‘partnership’ will look like, or if there is compensation involved for Rappler and Vera Files.

Regardless, Rappler and Vera Files should do the right thing: decline this partnership.  And someone should whisper into Mark Zuckerberg’s ear about the credentials of these two Philippine groups.

Not Balanced, Just Biased News

When Maria Ressa cries ‘suppression of Press Freedom’ because of the SEC closure order for her online news source, Rappler, she’s fighting not just for “free and fearless” journalism, but also biased journalism.

And yes, Rappler is biased.

Not just Rappler, but almost every single news source there is.

There can be no more perfect example of news bias than that what we see in the cable news networks.  CNN leans to the left of the spectrum, and FOX News leans to the right.  It is evident not just in their news reporting, but also in their following. The Republicans and the religious Right get their news from FOX; Democrats and the liberals get it from CNN.

The same is true in the Philippines. ABS-CBN News, Inquirer and Rappler tend to be more anti-administration, while Manila Times, CNN Philippines and obviously, the government-owned Philippine News Agency, are less critical of Duterte.

Individual journalists — especially columnists or radio and TV commentators have no qualms showing their political color: the Tulfos, Monsod, Tatad.

So let’s call a spade a spade.

All mainstream news media fall within different degrees of bias in the spectrum.  Even our satire site, The Adobo Chronicles, is not without political color. And as blogger Jover Laurio always says, here’s the ‘resibo.’

 

The Painful Truth About The News Media

Despite what news media companies proclaim about their noble mission of fair, balanced and accurate reporting, the truth remains that every single one of them adheres to one bottom line and one bottom line only: money.

Not that there’s anything wrong with that.  They operate a business and they have to make a profit.

But when the news media make noise about suppression of press freedom, they make it appear as if what’s being curtailed is the people’s access to the free flow of information.

In the first place, news media companies — whether they admit it or not — have their own biases.  That’s why FOX News attracts the conservatives and CNN has a big progressive following.

In the Philippines, the same news story is told in many different ways: a high national approval rating for Duterte elicits some focus on geographical locations where his rating is not all that satisfactory.  Conversely, an insignificant point increase in Robredo’s rating is heralded as a major shift in the people’s support for the VP.

News outlets like Inquirer, Rappler and ABS-CBN are more inclined to use and keep repeating the phrase, “Extra Judicial Killing,” while others are more circumspect in making sure their reports on EJKs are reported in the proper context.

So when the Securities and Exchange Commission decides to revoke Rappler’s license as a media company, Maria Ressa and company are quick to cry that press freedom is under attack.  Nevermind that they violated the very Constitution that gives them that freedom.

When Inquirer and company are pursued for unpaid taxes and financial obligations, they also spin it as the curtailment of press freedom.

And yet, despite their violations of the law, both Rappler and Inquirer have been free to criticize the government and continue to do so  — unabated — in venues that matter greatly — their own outlets, the International Press, social media, the streets and other public spaces.

So when they cry “defend Press Freedom,” it falls flat on their faces because no one has stopped them from speaking out and from defending their lies and biases.

In the meantime, hundreds of newspapers, television and radio stations continue to operate as free as free can be.

It has become comical.

The Problem With Statistics

I have one big problem with statistics.  They can create a mountain out of a molehill, as in the case of Rappler reporting on stats by Journalists Without Borders, showing that the Philippines is the “deadliest” country for journalists in all of Asia.

I cannot blame Rappler for jumping the gun on this juicy data. They’re constantly on the lookout for stuff that help boost their bias, politics and self interest.

The report zeroed in on FOUR Filipino journalists killed in the performance of their duty in the year 2017.

While one person needlessly killed is one person too many, ‘four’ barely justify the use of the descriptor “deadly.” (As opposed to, say, typhoon Haiyan leaving thousands upon thousand dead. Now, that’s deadly.)

What’s suspect is the fact that Rappler seemed to have endorsed the journalist group’s insinuation that President Rodrigo Duterte had something to do with the killings.

But let’s use data to fact-check this data from Rappler and company.

From 2009 to 2016, a total of 44 journalists were killed in the line of duty in the Philippines.  This, according to the database of the nonprofit group Committee to Protect Journalists.

Source: Committee to Protect Journalists

In other words, Duterte had nothing to do with the label of the Philippines being the “deadliest” country for journalists in 2017.

This is not the first time that the country “earned”  this notoriety.

More importantly, whether it was in 2009 or in 2017, data for journalist murders should be taken in context.  Who killed these journalists?

It doesn’t mean that just because 33 journalists were killed in 2009, during the administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo, she was responsible for the murders.  Or NoyNoy Aquino for the 9 journalists killed during part of his term.

Maybe, a better “news story” for Rappler would be to keep track of data on how many deaths the bungled Dengvaxia vaccine has brought about, or will bring.  Because from all indications, this vaccination program initiated by the Aquino administration, has the potential of being labeled “deadly.” God forbid.

 

Did ABS-CBN News Put Japanese National In Compromising Situation That Could Lead To Deportation?

In its eagerness to report on protests held in connection with this week’s ASEAN Summit in Manila, ABS-CBN News may have compromised the immigration status of a Japanese national whom the network photographed participating in a rally in Mendiola.

Foreign nationals are prohibited from participating in protests against the government.

Earlier, the Bureau of Immigration issued Operation Order No. SBM-2015-025 which enjoins foreign nationalst to observe the limitation on the exercise of their political rights during their stay in the country.

The same order states that they are prohibited from joining, supporting, contributing or involving themselves in whatever manner in any rally, assembly or gathering, whether for or against the government.

Featuring a foreigner on its headline story for the Mendiola protest may be an interesting angle, but ABS-CBN’s lack of knowledge of the law may have put the Japanese national in danger of deportation.

This is a clear case of journalism being practiced without the necessary research and expertise — a situation all too common among many of the so-called mainstream news media in the country.