Monday, December 29, 2008

EU Whiz: Just like a tattoo

I didn't know that Mindanao Daily Mirror had also covered the EU Whiz held last July; I thought it was only the Mindanao Times, until I stumbled an on-line version of the Mirror's account of the contest:



"UP Mindanao team won the grand championship in the recently concluded EU Whiz ’08 Mind Encounter Kaya Mo To! held at the event center of SM City Davao on July 10.

***
"The third round was between Holy Cross of Davao (Jed Bete, Kharren Ray Pala, Arvin Antonio Ortiz, Rolando Pelayo, and coach Teresa Fabiana), UP Mindanao, and Jose Maria College (Gretchen Belleza, Rizz Monique Juan, Earl Evangelio, Annie Rose Labong, and coach Rachel Amad).

"In the end UP Mindanao won, followed by Brokenshire as first runner-up, and AdDU as second runner-up."

The EU Whiz is  one event that will always remind me of 2008. Just like a tattoo, I'll always have it.  (Yuk-wasn't that line from Jordin Sparks' "Tattoo" song?)



It's not that I am  still harboring  a sayang-naman-hindi-kami-nanalo-feeling that I keep remembering that unfateful event. EU Whiz is memorable to me for two reasons:

  1. It is my first time to join a quiz bee outside the school.

  2. At least I did one thing in 2008 that I can be proud of:  imperiling the UP Min's chance of winning.



We  are desperate to win the contest. We even studied several facts and figures culled from the most unreliable of sources, just to secure that we left no stones unturned. Happenstance decreed otherwise. We lost. But I can say that it was a heroic defeat---at least for me.


While the article detailed how UP Min. won the contest, it forgot to mention how we made the UP Min's road to victory an uphill climb. Yes, making the Iskolar ng Bayan 's lives miserable (only in quiz bee, of course) is something that one can be proud, considering that the people in the audience (from what I heard from my friends who were there) are all rooting for them.

They are deserving indeed. But so are we. Although we know the answers, the  judges know  the UP  studes better. Tsk...Tsk...Tsk...

The moral of the story: Press the buzzer harder. And make sure the light works. Otherwise, the rival team will be called.

Tuesday, December 23, 2008

Nothing's changed

It has become an SOP (Standard Operating Procedure for the uninitiated) for teachers to require their students to write their New Year’s resolutions when they’re back to school. Even college students are not exempted. Putting another twist, my college teacher required us to write not a New Year’s resolution but our vision for the New Year. I grudgingly obliged. Now we are about to end 2008 and welcome yet another year, I re-read the piece I wrote. I was surprised to know that nothing’s really changed since then. Below is the full text of that piece I wrote as my vision for 2008:


After a long time of not sitting on a pew to receive the Holy Eucharist because partly of my prohibitive class schedule, it was a respite to sit again on one to listen, reflect, and pray. On New Year’s Day, I had had a taste of this respite when I attended the second mass scheduled for that day. It was also a more welcome respite to hear it from Fr. Dondon whose homily was as hefty as his weight. The attendance was relatively scarce, which made me wonder, considering that Catholics, in name and in fact, should be profusely thankful for that day, nay, everyday, for having survived and lived the bliss and the curse; the grace and disgrace of the previous year. Moreover, not only should that day be for devout Catholics to thank God, but also that day should be for Catholics—who profess to be one but seldom or never had practiced it—to contemplate. The attendance’s scarcity was due perhaps to the tired bones from the previous night’s celebration or the hangover from the previous night’s inebriation, or both.


Back to the mass, the priest’s homily was pregnant with insights on how to start the year right. To start the year right, said Fr. Dondon, is to start with a right disposition in life, like Mary, Mother of God who is full of grace, whose disposition in life is crystal clear. I agree with him because, drawing from my own experience, there was never a person who arrived to where he wanted to arrive without an exact destination of where he wanted to go. In the same vein, there was never a person who accomplished something without a sure knowledge of what he wanted to accomplish.


For the previous year, we had seen reforms of every kind, not because of, but despite the socio-politico-economic maladies that bedeviled. That is exactly what I want—an untrammeled search for reforms, for hope, despite the circumstances that might sometimes lead us to loose hope in hoping.


I don’t, however, mean that I want a repeat of 2007 where reforms found their way, not because of, but despite the socio-politico-economic maladies. Nor do I mean to try the same ways of seeking reforms when distressed with another maladies. For, as the timeworn cliché goes, we can’t step twice into the same river.



What I certainly mean is to search for reforms, not from without but from within; or as the Bishops put it, a "Cha-Cha"—Character Change. If in the previous year/s, we tried to push for amendments/revisions in our Constitution in order to solve our problems, maybe it’s time to put into practice the wisdom enshrined in it. Rather than change its basic principles so that they may suit our actions or correct our vices, maybe it’s time to change our actions and correct our vices so that they may be in accordance with the Constitution’s principles. There simply are things we can’t legislate nor impose. If we were disappointed in the previous year/s to find no alternatives because we were looking for reform from without, maybe it’s time to try looking for reform from within. We might be surprised to see how many alternatives we have from within. But when, in our lifetime, everything else fails and every step of the way is blocked, and neither reform from without nor reform from within is effective, have faith, be hopeful; faith is hope. And in hope we were saved. “SPE SALVI facti sumus.” (Mindanao Times, 12/21/08)

Wednesday, December 17, 2008

Prophecy fulfilled

[caption id="attachment_186" align="aligncenter" width="450" caption="RAZED. Taj Mahal Hotel was one of the targets of the recent carnage led which was led by an Islamist group suspected to have a link with Al-Qaeda. (Photo courtesy of Reuters)"]RAZED. Taj Mahal Hotel was one of the targets of the recent carnage led by an Islamist group suspected to have a link with Al-Qaeda. (Photo courtesy of Reuters)[/caption]

On October 18, 2008, Selig Harrison, director of the Asia Program at the Center for International Policy and a Senior Scholar at Woordrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, wrote an article in Newsweek that sounded like an early warning. A key passage read:
Unless Washington broadens its counterterrorism strategy and forces Islamabad to crack down, the Islamists could end up wreaking havoc not only in Pakistan but also in India—eight times larger, a rising global power with growing ties to the United States and a huge and restive Muslim minority."

And havoc they wreaked.

On November 27, 2008, more than a month later when the article came out, news of terrorist attacks in Mumbai, India came out.

--------

For the timeline of the recent carnage, read Timeline-Attack on Mumbai.

For an account that the Pakistani militant that attacked Mumbai , India's financial capital, has a link with Al-Qaeda, read Follow the 8 links to Al-Qaeda by Maria A. Ressa, ABS-CBN's VP for News and Current Affairs, who is also the author of Seeds or Terror: An Eyewitness Account of Al-Qaeda’s Newest Center of Operations in Southeast Asia .

For excellent analyses on on the "whys" of the attack, read The Fire Needs to Be Put  Out by Fareed Zakaria and The Problem is Politics by Shekhar Gupta.

Tuesday, December 16, 2008

Time for smart government


Gone are the days when debates over the role (if at all) of the government vis-à-vis the economy centered on whether markets need big or small government intervention. With the whiplash of global economic crisis expected to hit badly by 2009, arguing if there’s a necessity—nay, urgency— for government interventions is simply not advisable. Economists of different persuasions believe that governments should. Why? Because as those who have gone through Economics 101 (Principles of Economics) with the assistance of Prof. Gregory Mankiw’s textbook know, Principle No.7 says that “The government can sometimes improve market outcomes.”



Now isn’t the time to cry over spilled milk either. Rather, it’s time to think of ways how we can get out of this—alive and kicking. Prof. Cielito Habito, for instance, argued that there is a way out of crisis if only the government acts smartly.


Sunday, December 14, 2008

Register now or else...

[caption id="attachment_174" align="aligncenter" width="250" caption="Photo courtesy of Hon. Mabel Sunga Acosta"]Photo courtesy of Hon. Mabel Sunga Acosta[/caption]

There is a differing opinion over whether the 2010 elections will be held considering that Cha-cha moves are under way in the House of Representatives. But I do still invest a dash of  belief that the 2010 elections will be held as scheduled, thanks to the efforts of some Senators and other concerned sectors---civil society, religious sectors, international NGOs, etc. Which is why I encourage those who are not yet registered but are already qualified to vote to register now or else...you will not see the change you want in this country.

As the great Gandhi said: Be the change you want to be. Unless you want this country to be doomed eternally, do not let your vote go to waste. In the words of Conrado de Quiros:
...the wasted vote is the one you withhold from the candidate you deem deserving because “he is not going to win anyway.” That is a self-fulfilling prophecy, guaranteeing doom -- and not just for your candidate. The only thing worse than being disempowered is having the power and not knowing you do. Or worse, knowing you do and abdicating it. The vote is a great power, and it is something we hold in our hands. The victory of candidates is not written in the stars, it is written in our hearts. The victory of candidates is not foreordained, it is decided by us. We do not vote for candidates, they do not win. We vote for candidates, they win.

Even if the candidate you believe in is not a popular one, what of it? Voting is not just something you do for a candidate, it is something you do for yourself. Or to yourself. Elections are a test of character, but it is not just a test of character for the candidate, it is a test of character for the voter, too. It’s not just the candidate who’s on trial in elections, it is you, too. When you vote, you do not just decide the kind of life you want for the nation, you decide what kind of life you want for yourself. You can choose either the life of a lemming and throw yourself off a cliff because everybody is doing so or the life of a human being and act as reason and conviction tell you to.

At the end of the day, you do not just have to live with the candidate you have inflicted on the nation, you have to live with yourself and the wound you have inflicted on yourself. You can’t be true to yourself, you can’t be true to the nation. Stop complaining about this country going nowhere. There is no vote that is wasted on a candidate you believe is fit to run this country, whether he wins or not. You do not win when you vote a fool or a tyrant to office because he or she is the “strong candidate,” you lose -- even if he or she wins. Above all when he or she wins. And you do not lose when you vote for a candidate as your conscience bids, you win -- even if he or she loses. Above all if he or she loses: It is but the beginning of struggle.

The “wasted vote” is a stupid concept. You keep worrying about it, you’re wasting your time, your energy and your life.

It's entirely up to us voters. Register now!

Friday, December 12, 2008

A united and independent Senate

Yesterday's PDI headline read: Senate junks Con-ass

Thursday, December 11, 2008

Relevant economics

Everyone's decision is somehow guided, if not totally governed, by economics. It is thus important to study economics to make a sound decision, one that is built on solid foundations. But the study of economics tends to divorce the theories and principles of economics from real life. And this has led countless students in the past as well as in the present to debate the relevance---or the lack of it---of studying economics.

Principles such as "People think at the margin," "Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns," to name just two, are the usual stuffs students learn in elementary economics (Econ. 101). These are useful economic tools students can use even in dealing with their own realities and dilemmas. But oftentimes students do not see this fact, partly because economics teachers don't show how economics can make our complex lives manageable. When economics teachers start to teach, they create, unconsciously I believe, a comfortable distance between what they are teaching and what is currently happening in the world.

One of the ways to address this problem is to require students to read an article that, say, attempts to marry or shows how theory and practice go together.

For starters, the teacher can recommend to students  Why Barriers Don't Matter by Barrett Sheridan to make them appreciate how time was not able to render the Law of Diminishing Marginal Returns obsolete, especially in international trade.

Wednesday, December 10, 2008

Sports and politics: The twain sometimes meet

[caption id="attachment_151" align="aligncenter" width="594" caption="Photo Courtesy of www.zimbio.com"]Photo Courtesy of www.zimbio.com[/caption]

Before the fight there was a consensus among boxing analysts and ordinary boxing fans that the Pacquiao-de la Hoya fight was a mismatch. Manny Pacquiao’s speed and age would stand no match against Oscar de la Hoya’s apparent advantages—his height, reach, and experience.

As the events unfolded, however, Pacquiao dwarfed de la Hoya. There were many speculations on the “hows” and “whys” of Pacquiao’s victory. On one hand, there are those who said, rightly or wrongly, that it was scripted, with Pacquiao taking the role of the victor and de la Hoya, the vanquished. On the other hand, there are those who said it was a combination of Pacquiao’s determination, his brilliance in executing his game plan, and his unrelenting faith in God. Whatever, one thing is sure: His victory, then as now, brought yet another pride to the country.


And some benefits, too.


The day of the Pacquiao-de la Hoya match gave everyone a temporary respite from the discouraging political scene in the country. With the House of Representative poised to ram through changes in the Constitution for whatever ends the Representatives have in mind, one can’t help but be thankful for that boxing match. For it was as if the plans to pursue Cha-cha ground to a halt.


While the Pacquiao-de la Hoya match did breathe fresh air into the smothering atmosphere of politics, it did not dispense with politics altogether. Not that some of our Congressmen were there or Lito Atienza having failed to appear in the Senate hearing to defend his department’s (DENR) budget because he watched the fight in Las Vegas. It is that those boisterous exchange of punches; raucous cheers and jeers from the audience; and swollen eyes and bruises de la Hoya earned thereafter, are as much present in boxing as they are in politics.



The political game, as in boxing or any sports for that matter, can get exceedingly dirty and bruising, albeit figuratively. However athletes and politicians play their game, they still have to play by the rules. But with all its similarities, there is one thing that makes politics distinct from sports. In sports, you can’t take both roles; you can never be a player and at the same time a rule maker. In politics, however, you can be both; you can be a player and at the same time a rule maker. Even if, say, a boxer is very much eager to win, he can’t go beyond what is prescribed by the rules. His game plan must constantly be aligned vis-à-vis the rules that govern the game.


That is what makes the political player different from an athlete. If the rules go against them, should they follow? Not necessarily. At least not when they have the means at their disposal to change the rules so that the rules fit their game plan.


Batangas Rep. Hermilando Mandanas’ House Resolution No. 550 is an example. Had it succeeded, it would have postponed the 2010 elections to 2011, thereby extending by one-year the terms of local officials, and by extension, PGMA's. Fortunately, though, it hadn’t.


However, it is only one of the strings of attempts to change the Constitution. It definitely won’t be the last. Expect more in the coming days as the players and rule makers are still out in the wild.

Tuesday, December 9, 2008

Kids let loose in a candy store

Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. had a very interesting thing to say the other day:
...there is good technical reason for opposing the proposal [for Congress to convene as Constituent Assembly].... The good technical reason is that a constituent assembly, whether consisting of both houses of Congress or of a constitutional convention, is a peculiar sort of animal. Once it comes into existence and is convened, it takes on an independent life of its own. Nobody can limit the scope of what it wants to do.

Or to put it mildly, members of the Con-ass would be like kids let loose in a candy store.

Friday, December 5, 2008

Neal Cruz seconded

In a previous post, I said that the reason why GMA's life after 2010---

[caption id="attachment_144" align="alignright" width="300" caption=""FROM PRESIDENT TO JAILBIRD" She certainly can't afford it. (Photo courtesy of Teo Marasigan)"]"From President to jailbird" She certainly can't afford it. [/caption]

supposing that she will indeed step down by that time---will not be peaceful is that she will be facing a deluge of complaints. It will be more stressful than her work in Malacañang. And the only way to keep herself out of that impending mess is to remain in power. Philippine Daily Inquirer's columnist Neal Cruz, in his column yesterday, thought the same:
So why doesn’t she step down? Because it may mean imprisonment. Because she may lose all the wealth she has accumulated. It would mean humiliation.

She knows that when she is no longer president, she will lose her immunity from suit. And considering her many grievous sins to the nation, she knows that she will be swamped with lawsuits once she is out of power. From president to jailbird—that is not acceptable. She has to avoid that at all costs.

Thursday, December 4, 2008

Will it be halcyon days for GMA after 2010?

Pampanga Rep. Juan Miguel “Mikey” Arroyo, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s (GMA) eldest son, has been soliciting support from die-hard colleagues for a resolution that will call for both chambers of the Congress—the House of Representatives and the Senate—to convene as Constituent Assembly to reconsider certain provisions in the Constitution.






In response to the apprehensions of the many, the younger Arroyo belied the allegations that it will be a pretext to extend his mother’s term. “I think she will take care of her grandchildren, Mikey was reported as saying. “I think she will go back to teaching or give lectures [as] what many former presidents do all over the world.”






I wonder where has Mikey Arroyo been all these days. Unless he was lying dormant in a remote enclave, he must have known that his mother’s administration is hounded by several controversies, scams, scandals, issues (whatever you call them), for which many sectors want to hold his mother accountable.






It is highly doubtful whether GMA will have a moment’s peace by the time she’ll step down in 2010. To say that GMA will lead a peaceful life after 2010 is to be ignorant of GMA’s yet unanswered liabilities—from the fertilizer scam to the scuttled NBN-ZTE deal to the North Rail Project and a host of other issues.






If today she can not be held accountable for, it is because as a President, she can not be sued. In other words, she is immune. Which is why those people who want to indict GMA will have to wait for 2010. But that is if we invest a certain amount of belief that she will be true to her promise that she will step down in 2010 as mandated by the Constitution.






Granting GMA will no longer be in office by 2010, her life will be far from peaceful. After she leaves the presidency, she leaves with it the privileges she once enjoyed, chief of which is the immunity from suit. In effect, a barrage of complaints will definitely be coming her way. The first thing she'll do then is to postpone the idea of teaching or taking care of her grandchildren because she has yet to fulfill her responsibility to the people—a responsibility bigger than her responsibility to her family.






That is her responsibility to tell the people the truth.




Tuesday, December 2, 2008

The Consti's primordial intent: A bicameral Congress

Several attempts to amend or revise the Constitution (popularly known in this country as Charter change [Cha-cha]) in the recent past did not fail to raise a howl of protest. From the administration of Ramos to Estrada to Arroyo, Cha-cha as an agenda of every administration never ceased to have a nemesis coming from different sectors—religious, civil society, political opponents, etc. The ones that are underway in the House of Representatives are no exemption.






But aside from Cha-cha itself, the mode of carrying it out is equally problematic. There are three ways to do it as provided by the Constitution: (1) through Constitutional convention (Con-con); (2) through people’s initiative; and (3) through Constituent assembly. The third one is the option the proponents of Cha-cha in the House want to pursue. However, it is also the trickiest because up to today it is still unclear (and the Supreme Court hasn’t decided yet) whether the two chambers of Congress---Senate and House of Representative---vote separately or jointly should they convene as Con-ass to change the Constitution?






To the proponents of Cha-cha in the House, who are staunch allies of GMA, the two chambers should vote jointly. Seen that way, the Senate, which is independent of the House, would be nothing but a mere cog with virtually no influence whatsoever. That is, of course, not what the framers of the 1987 Constitution intended when they deliberately made the Congress bicameral.



The Constitution may be silent on the question at hand—whether the House and the Senate vote jointly or separately—but a “structural interpretation” could shed light on the debate.







In his column in the Philippine Daily Inquirer, constitutionalist Fr. Joaquin Bernas, S.J. said “that the vote required is three-fourths of all the members of the Senate and three-fourths of all the members of the House taken separately.” The reason being that “Congress is bicameral and a bicameral body votes separately.” Fr. Bernas added:






When the Constitution wants the two houses to vote jointly, the Constitution says so. This it does when Congress is authorized to override a declaration of martial law. And even when Congress can act only in joint session, as it is the case when called to declare the existence of a state of war, the Constitution still commands that they vote separately. Similarly, under the 1935 Constitution, when Congress could propose amendments only if assembled in joint session, the Constitution commanded that they vote separately.



The reason for separate voting is simple: voting jointly, unless authorized as an exception by the Constitution, destroys the bicameral character of Congress. Thus, the silence of the constitutional text on the manner of voting must be interpreted in the light of the bicameral structure of Congress. Structural interpretation is one of the modes of constitutional construction.

One of the attempts to effect constitutional change comes from Rep. Mikey Arroyo, the President’s eldest son. His is an attempt to amend the Constitution through Constituent Assembly with the Senate and the House voting jointly, not separately.






What the Constitution put asunder let no fools join together.





Monday, December 1, 2008

How to rectify Bush's errors?

TIME's columnist Joe Klein wrote that ironic as it may seem,
...if Obama really wants to make a clean break from his predecessor, he should start by retaining George W. Bush's Secretary of Defense [Robert Gates].

press release from The Office of the President-Elect said:
President-elect Barack Obama and Vice President-elect Joe Biden officially announced key members of their national security team today: nominating Senator Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State, selecting Defense Secretary Robert Gates to remain as Secretary of Defense...

To use Klein's terms, that's truly Obama's "team of rivals."