“In the end, the question is not which party to side with, but how the Philippines can best protect its territorial integrity. It is not in our interest to play a willing part in US military maneuverings in the region. If there is a perception that China is bullying us, the solution is not to run for help to a bigger bully. Diplomacy within the framework of mutually beneficial relations with our neighbors in the region should be our utmost weapon. Clearly, the best foreign policy is one that is anchored on the assertion of national sovereignty and not one that relies on a Big Brother to protect the country’s interests.”

From US agenda in Asia and the risks that Aquino is courting by Arnold Padilla. [Emphasis mine]

Students from UST Faculty of Civil Law are to participate in all the games from basketball to–believe it or not–DoTA. The second weekend saw Thomasian law students play basketball and volleyball against teams from FEU, San Sebastian College-Recoletos, San Beda College-Alabang and DLSU. The day’s games were held at the Enrique Razon Sports Center of DLSU-Manila.

Women’s Basketball (versus Far Eastern University)

Men’s Basketball (versus San Sebastian College-Recoletos)

Women’s Volleyball (versus San Beda College-Alabang)

Men’s Volleyball (versus DLSU)

January 27, 2012. More than 40,000 students, faculty, staff, bishops and priests, guests and visitors converged at the UST open field today to mark the closing of the university’s whole-year Quadricentennial celebration. The event also served to usher in the Catholic university’s “fifth century.”

The main event was a communal singing of a medley of songs by all those in attendance dubbed “40 Thousand Voices.” Afterwards, the university staged a pyromusical display that bested its traditional Paskuhan fireworks. The rest of the night, they served free-flowing roasted meats (lechon manok, baboy, baka) for students and staff at different stations around campus. A concert with performing artists and other celebrities capped the night off. It was Thomasian extravagance and festivity at its finest.

These photos are mostly of my fellow law students who took part in the celebration.

Congratulations, UST!

Sample costumes from the Facebook page of Velada Tomasina

To close its celebration of its Quadricentennial, the University of Santo Tomas is holding a two-day festival (January 25-26) that hopes to recreate UST in the “perspective of the cultural milieu of old Manila at the turn of the 19th century” through “period costumes, songs, dances, poems and festivity.”

This, I think, is a great opportunity for us to appreciate the role of UST students in Philippine history. It was, after all, the period of Jose Rizal, Emilio Jacinto, Apolinario Mabini and Padre Jose Burgos. However, I am disturbed by the tendency of the administration and many students to regard this celebration as a mere pageantry of costumes and deodorized commemoration of whatever concept of grandeur they have of “old Manila,” devoid of any socio-political context of its times.

Truly, if we wished to genuinely recreate UST and Manila during the turn of the century, then we should be keenly aware that it was a period of massive poverty and colonial oppression. It was a period of revolution. UST was at the crossroads of student unrest. If we UST students were alive back then, we wouldn’t even be in UST. Not at a time when education was an exclusive privilege controlled by the Catholic Church, unless of course if we were sons and daughters from illustrado families. We were more likely to be sons and daughters of poor peasants and laborers, or Katipuneros ourselves. So why would we be wearing coats and maria claras this week? My point is, this tendency to highlight this celebration as just a perfumed gala of costumes is disturbing, but presents itself as a hopeful challenge for us.

UST–and the rest of the country–at the turn of UST’s “Neo-Centennial” finds itself in very similar social conditions from the UST at the turn of the century. History has proven that no matter how sheltered an institution will try to be, it can never insulate itself from the ebb and flow of the tide of its times. No matter how repressive administrators can be, they can never prevent the emergence of heroes. Imagine how the priests reacted to Jose Rizal and Emilio Jacinto. We are at a period when, still, only a handful of families and corporations control the government and our economy. We are at a period when inequalities in society, the gap between the wealthy few and the poor majority, are so profoundly pronounced. We are at a period where massive poverty still gripe Filipinos. Sure, it’s nice to commemorate the end of the Quadricentennial with costumes, if you are all into that kind of thing. But what better way to commemorate the beginning of UST’s fifth century than to relive the legacy of its proud heroes (which for a long time back then the Dominicans disowned, of course, but now proudly parade as Thomasians).

We are all Emilio Jacintos of our generation! Mabuhay ang mga Tomasino!

What really is the fundamental difference between economic policies of the two? Nothing. President Aquino merely continues the same economic policies of President Arroyo.

Both Presidents’ economic programs adhere to the same dogma of neoliberal globalization. It’s the economy, all right–the economy of big businessmen, foreign investors and their local counterparts. Whether or not ordinary Filipinos benefit from such economic growth is merely incidental. They have a phrase for it–”trickle down” effect. Numbers that proclaim economic growth are rendered meaningless by the fact that poverty has continued to worsen over the decade, so much that the government had to re-define and lower the poverty threshold. The vision of economic prosperity and survival is entirely dependent on foreign investors and all the economic programs of President Aquino and his predecessors are aligned with the agenda of these monopoly capitalists and their local counterparts.

Both Presidents have pushed for the further privatization of public utilities by selling contracts to roads and other public services to private profiteers. Both administrations have strengthened the deregulation of industries imbued with public interest and rejected clamors to repeal the laws that allow such deregulation, from the oil industry (Oil Deregulation Law) to power generation and distribution (EPIRA) to education (Education Act of 1982), which have resulted to public services that are increasingly out of reach to ordinary Filipinos and are increasingly profitable to private corporations.

Both Presidents have continued to bow down to the whims of big businessmen and investors by refusing to increase wages even as their values have tremendously eroded and while prices of commodities have increased incessantly, making life very difficult for vast numbers of Filipinos.

In the same breath, both Presidents adhere to the same bankrupt structural adjustment programs as conditions to foreign loans, pushed by multinational creditors such as the IMF and World Bank that push for the privatization of public utilities and grave cuts in subsidies to public services such as education and health care, and for the erosion of economic protection in favor of domestic industries. In the end, while Filipinos continue to pay increasing taxes, they receive less services from government as foreign creditors drain public coffers dry. And whatever is left of a semblance of domestic manufacturing and agriculture have continued to collapse in favor of multinational industries and the flood of imports.

Both administrations have perpetually rejected an agenda of genuine agrarian reform and national industrialization as fundamental steps to sustainable job creation and equitable economic progress, and have instead allowed foreign capitalists and investors to siphon off and exploit the country’s rich natural resources such as minerals and lumber for the industries of other countries, and have unapologetically refused to repeal laws that allow such plunder (Mining Act of 1995). In the end, we are permanently and increasingly being denied of our hopeful prospect for national industrialization and we are left with ravaged land more vulnerable than ever to climate change, as we’ve seen repeatedly through the tragedies last year.

Both administrations have nothing to offer the youth but the grim prospect of overseas employment or call center jobs, which both have to contend with the crisis of other countries which have themselves taken steps to restrict foreign hiring and reverse outsourcing.

In desperate attempts to temper poverty and unemployment statistics, both administrations have resorted to cash dole outs, food for work programs and technical re-definitions of poverty and unemployment.

The point is, this is a classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Or a Big Mac mocking a Champ for being greasy and unhealthy. One will certainly be hard-pressed to find any substantial difference between the two. All Aquino has to show for is his tired rhetoric about anti-corruption, the illusion of which is slowly being eroded through the unmasking of his KKK’s (kamag-anak, kaklase, kaibigan). Once such illusion has been fully eroded, nothing–nothing will set him apart from his much-despised predecessor.

This teaches us a valuable lesson. Whoever sits in Malacañang, as long as they belong to the same mold and the same social class who will adhere to their class interest, will never make a difference no matter how they portray themselves as opposite their predecessors. Our social redemption and liberation from poverty lies not in changing Presidents but in decisively and radically shifting economic and political policies. The problem is, the apparatus for change that some of us believe and hope this could be achieved, legislative and electoral, are both arenas controlled by those who perpetuate the rotten order.

The alternative path, then, for social change is clear.

*In reference the Italian idiom “Cencio che dice mal di straccio” or “A rag speaking ill of a cloth,” in Tagalog, “Trapo inaway ang trapo”

(1) “Student, teacher no different”: Aquino like Arroyo insensitive to rising oil prices
(2) Arroyo and Aquino economics are one and the same
(3) PH economy in 2011 (Part 1): Flawed development plan
(4) PH economy in 2011 (Part 2): The elusive “inclusive growth”

I answered this “meme” a few years ago, and my grade was a “C”. I came across it a few hours back and I decided to take it again. Improvement.

It was reported that as many as 8.5 million Filipinos trooped to Manila last Monday to join the procession of the Black Nazarene icon, believed by many to perform miracles. If you are not awed by the sheer size of the multitude, let us put it in perspective. Eight and a half million is just a little less than ten percent of the entire population. It is almost the size of the population of the entire Metro Manila, swarmed in a few square kilometers of space. This year’s procession is said to have been the largest in the history of the Feast of the Black Nazarene.

This enormous outpouring of a great mass of Filipinos in the procession represents two things. First, the intense faith and devotion of Catholic Filipinos. And second, more importantly, that millions of our fellow Filipinos identify with the tribulations of Jesus Christ and are willing to join what may figuratively be the world’s largest stampede to pray for miracles–which tells a lot about the social conditions we find ourselves in as a nation.

(1) [The Daily Tribune] Soaring number of Black Nazarene devotees sign of worsening poverty — urban poor group
(2) [Kadamay Press Release] ‘Pagdami ng mga deboto ng Itim na Nazareno, tanda ng lumalalang kahirapan’–Kadamay
(3) [ABS-CBN TV Patrol] Dami ng deboto ng Nazareno, ikinabit ng survey sa kahirapan

Nakiusap ang mga nanay ng Corazon de Jesus na makabalik sila sa kanilang sinisira nang mga tahanan para maisalba ang natitira nilang mga gamit. Pero pinipigilan sila ng mga pulis. (photo and caption by KR Guda of PinoyWeekly.org)

There is something particularly bothersome with the condescending arrogance displayed by some people with regard the issue of the urban poor and their problem on housing. Relying on pure legalese, they forward an overly simplified position that since “squatters” do not own the land where their shanties are built on, they deserve to be evicted–by force.

These people fail to recognize the social context of the problem. A fourth of Metro Manila, a staggering 584,425 families according to the National Housing Authority, are informal settlers. When the problem affects a significant portion of the population it ceases from becoming a purely legal problem of property rights and land ownership. It becomes a tragic social phenomenon, in much the same way as peasant landlessness is, and thus calls for fundamental political and economic solutions like agrarian land reform.

If you think squatters are not entitled to live in their homes, you might as well ask for the eviction of a fourth of Metro Manila for squatting on idle lands. Wow. If you don’t realize it, many of Manila’s laborers come form the urban poor. They do everything from cooking and serving your food, doing your laundry, and ironically–building your homes. You might as well ask for the paralysis of economic activity in the national capital.

Even the 1987 Constitution (Secs. 9-10, Art. XIII) recognizes the problems of the urban poor as a manifestation of a grave social ill, rejects the idea that squatting is merely an issue of property rights, and affords the urban poor protection.

Sec 10. Urban or rural poor dwellers shall not be evicted nor their dwellings demolished, except in accordance with law and in a just and humane manner.

No resettlement of urban or rural dwellers shall be undertaken without adequate consultation with them and the communities where they are to be relocated.

Naysayers are quick to make judgments about the urban poor. That they are stubborn and anti-development, lazy and unwilling to work, that they are in cahoots with syndicates, etcetera. The urban poor are not anti-development. They are not totally unwilling to move out of their shanties, because whose man’s dream to live in a squatter’s area, really? They only ask that they be relocated to homes that they can afford, and to communities that are near places of economic activity that will provide them jobs and places where there are public services and utilities–in other words, places where they could live like all Filipinos should. It escapes me why the government insists on relocating the urban poor to places where there are no jobs and where there are dilapidated public utilities and services–the very reasons they left their places of origin in the first place.

A government that fails to address the fundamental roots of poverty, especially in the countryside, that forces millions of Filipinos to “squat” in urban centers has no business evicting them from their homes. If they insist on inflicting violence and displacing a fourth of the national capital from their homes, they might as well call for a massive riot the next day, for it is instinct for any man to defend his home, sometimes to the point of anarchy and death. Thank god for activists though, however maliciously maligned by those in power, for organizing the urban poor to ensure organized political action to assert the rights of the marginalized.

–

An urgent appeal to end all demolitions in San Juan
Militant group supports in-city relocation for San Juan City informal settlers
Komunidad ng maralita sa San Juan marahas na dinemolis

December 16, 2011. We were coaxed to dress up in Egyptian costumes that afternoon. Law students were assigned the “Flight of Israelites from Egypt” during the Paskuhan parade. Our pyramid float literally had to float because the wheels malfunctioned. We had to carry the “pyramid” on our shoulders. (I was telling the Israelites to carry the pyramid, they were the slaves after all, but they were busy crossing the parted “Red Sea” he he!) All’s well after the pleasant two-hour agony! Much thanks to students from the College of Fine Arts and Design for doing all our costumes and props and for parading with us.

The much-anticipated fireworks were okay, but not as impressive as last year’s. There goes our tuition burning in the sky ahoo!

An estimated hundred thousand (100,000) people trooped to UST campus in Sampaloc that night.

Our involvement with the issue of the Chief Justice’s impeachment must not degenerate into taking sides from among the warring political factions of the government, for we must remember that what truly matters is the people’s welfare. Beyond all the cacophony of this political circus, the truth remains that both contending ruling cliques have their own vested agenda. The Aquino and the Arroyo groups have taken advantage and exploited this feud in order to portray themselves as heroes and saints while neither of them genuinely address the basic pursuit of social justice in the country.

To take side with either bully of the schoolyard is not a choice, it is a false dichotomy.

On one hand, if we are truly for judicial integrity and independence, we should welcome the opportunity for the Chief Justice to defend himself against allegations of partiality in an impeachment trial. We should caution against those who portray the impeachment of the Chief Justice as an attack against the Judiciary as an institution and paint several personalities as martyrs. Impeachment per se is not a breach of judicial independence. Impeachment is a mechanism for Congress to fulfill its check and balance function as representatives of the people. It is not a mere surplusage in our Constitution. Our Supreme Court Justices, highly esteemed by some of us as they may be, are not infallible demigods who are immune from scrutiny and criticism, and they remain to be public officials who are accountable to the people.

We should also welcome the impeachment as a step in holding accountable the past administration of former President Arroyo, for it is undeniable that while the Chief Justice is in power, the integrity and impartiality of all Supreme Court decisions with regard the Chief Justice’s former principal, to whom he has served as chief of staff and legal counsel, will be put into question. Judging the pattern of decisions and opinions of the Chief Justice, indeed his impartiality is in doubt.

On the other hand, we should also caution our support for such pursuit of judicial integrity by refusing to throw all our weight behind the Aquino clique, for it is readily apparent that this is a machination to consolidate all branches of government at his disposal, after a consistent pattern of Supreme Court decisions that run against the present administration’s interests, the final straw being that of the decision regarding Hacienda Luisita. Removing an Arroyo-appointed Chief Justice opens the golden opportunity for President Aquino to install his own. In that regard, we should also remain vigilant in the common pursuit of a Supreme Court that is truly an independent entity capable of dispensing legal matters with fairness and justice.

At the end of the day, while we are being made to watch this political circus the prevailing fact remains, President Aquino has no clear program of action to resolve the root causes of massive poverty and injustice in the Philippines but a rehash the same old bankrupt economic framework and political policies of his predecessors, including former President Arroyo. All President Aquino has to show for, laudable as it may be, is a smokescreen of anti-corruption rhetoric. Such is merely a staged showdown between his administration and Arroyo’s which does not address the basic problems of the people. After all, in the final analysis, how different are the two cliques from each other?

* with reference to former President Arroyo’s infamous line in response to critics: “I’m tired of chasing the bullies around the schoolyard!”