The ProPinoy Project

Philippine conservatism

Doy Santos aka The Cusp — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 22:00:43 +0000

On the problem of “jobless growth” and how to fix it

The last time the Philippines experienced an economic contraction was way back in 1998 in the aftermath of the Asian financial crisis. Since then, the country has posted 57 consecutive quarters of positive growth averaging 4.7 per cent in real terms year-on-year.

That may not be as fast as the Chinas or Indias of this world, but it is still pretty respectable considering the events both domestic and foreign that have occurred during this time (which include the impeachment trial of President Joseph Estrada, EDSA Dos and Tres, September 11, the dot.com crash and Enron scandal, the Oakwood mutiny, the global financial crisis, the Great Recession, and the current EU debt crisis, to name a few).

What do we mean by jobless growth?

Over the last seven years, 5.42 million net new jobs were created or an average of about 773,000 annually. This again is no mean feat. The only problem is that the labour force has also grown by about 5.49 million averaging an increase of around 785,000 new entrants per year 76,000 more than the jobs created since 2005.

If the growth of our workforce had been half as much, then the amount of jobs created would have been sufficient for the 2.8 million unemployed workers in 2012. If not for demographics, our unemployment rate would be much lower. Jobless growth in our context can best be described as a situation where economic growth fails to produce enough jobs to reduce the absolute number of unemployed workers in a sustained manner.

In the past, the economy’s inability to bring the number of the unemployed down was assigned to the growth rate not being fast enough. Instead of growing at an average rate of around 5 per cent, we needed to be growing at 7 per cent, or more.

Over the past three quarters, that is precisely the speed at which our economy has been expanding–above 7 per cent–which makes the employment figures for the April 2013 quarter all the more disappointing. Over the year, the number of those employed actually fell!

While we should not read too much into one quarter’s report (it is best to average four quarters’ worth of jobs data for the year to get a more realistic picture), it is still worth pondering how the economy could have expanded so much and yet not have made a dent in employment terms.

Examining “jobless growth”

Perhaps, much of the growth occurred as people moved from temporary and daily wage earnings into full-time, salaried employment as the labour force survey suggests. Increased income per worker rather than an increased number of workers might be a plausible explanation.

The other could be the increasing “financialisation” of the economy as the banking and finance sector posted one of the highest growth rates among all sectors. This means that growth came more in the form of profits, bonuses and commissions paid to the business elite and their shareholders. Financialisation has been blamed for jobless growth in the West, more recently.

Then there is technological progress. The construction industry, for instance, may have grown the fastest, but the use of new methods and materials might have made it less labour-intensive than before.

The same applies to manufacturing. Our country once specialised in garments and toy-making which were conducive to sweatshops, but we have since switched to electronics and semi-conductor production which makes use of automated processes. The rapid growth in durable equipment that occurred in the first quarter could have allowed businesses to substitute capital for labour.

How Philippine conservatism is to blame

This would all be fine if those who profited from growth gave back a proportionate amount of their earnings in the form of taxes. Unfortunately, the collection of taxes went down as a proportion of GDP in the first quarter of the year. Despite the best efforts and reassurances of the current administration to lift the tax collection effort, their ability to generate tax receipts in a manner that would keep pace with the growth of the economy, remains very much in doubt.

The unemployment situation would be even worse if not for the mobile and adaptable workers that we have. Over the past seven years, the country has on average deployed 1.3 million Filipinos each year to work abroad. If we had not done so, we would have had double digit unemployment rates during this time. There would have been greater poverty, crime and social unrest, not to mention less consumption, savings and investment.

The residential and commercial property sector as well as financial markets would not be experiencing the boom we are currently witnessing. The credit upgrades that our political elite boast of would not be possible either.

Yet, despite the extra impetus provided by ordinary Filipinos who are forced to earn their living from abroad, often under difficult conditions, separated from their loved ones, the conservative forces in our society have successfully marshalled resources to maintain the status quo or keep it from changing rapidly instead of opening up our socio-economic life to the dynamism that it requires.

First of all, the demographic burden that we have discussed above has been caused by conservative forces hindering the development of reproductive health policies for decades. As a result, the Philippines will only see its population peak sometime in the latter half of this century based on current estimates. This has created a situation where the country’s current growth rate is unable to provide a sufficient number of jobs for those entering the workforce.

Secondly, the low tax-to-GDP level in the country has been set by the oligarchic business community in complicity with dynastic political families who have been unwilling to contribute their fair share to improve our country’s physical, social and economic infrastructure, the very thing needed to boost investment. Of course that doesn’t bother them because as the big fishes in a small pond, they are able to keep their stranglehold on the nation’s resources.

As the government relies on the private sector to fund major infrastructure projects, large domestic conglomerates have successfully cornered these contracts. The tepid pace at which Public-Private Partnerships have been approved is due to the fact that interest from the global investment community has waned. This isn’t the sort of public private partnership we need. The correct form of partnership is for the business community to pay the right amount of tax for the government to do the investing, not the other way around.

Thirdly, other countries with more progressive leaders have created sovereign wealth funds from their balance of payments surpluses to invest in their nation’s development; but, the inherent conservatism among our policy elite restrains them from tapping the massive stock of foreign reserves generated primarily not through exports, nor by foreign direct investments, but by foreign remittances, to fund the infrastructure needs of the country.

This innate conservatism was on display during the last election. I did a thorough evaluation of the senatorial candidates—their policies and legislative proposals—and two of the most topical were the ones to increase “skills matching” activities and loans to micro, small and medium-size enterprises (MSMEs).

Now I have nothing against skills matching, but we know that there are skills shortages that if plugged would only solve a tiny fraction of the unemployment problem, and yet so many senatorial candidates ignored the elephant in the room, the massive, long-term unemployed in favour of the small target.

Similarly I have nothing against MSMEs, but we also know that MSMEs do not generate as much new employment, at least the kind that matters, i.e. the full-time, salaried kind. And yet they take up an inordinate amount of attention in our political discourse. The new ventures with high innovation content, the kind that generates higher incomes and greater employment were not even talked about, save for one candidate who took on board the sovereign wealth fund idea to fund them, but failed to get elected.

How do we rectify the problem

The notion of the state performing the role of investor of last resort, the source of funds for projects that are deemed too risky by private capital markets but could have massive potential, is seldom talked about. This is because our history is littered with incidents where our business elite have exploited their connections within government to fund their own pet projects. Rather than being the lender of last resort, the government has been the financier of first instance, or the source of “booty capital”.

Of course, given our innate conservatism, marked by a high tolerance for social inequality and low tolerance for risk, there is nothing that prevents us from focusing on the small target, the low hanging fruit, the necessary, but insufficient conditions for mass employment generation. We can continue focusing on providing the right “eco-system” for innovation and investment, lowering the cost of doing business and the like.

But what should happen if our overseas workers start being turned back in droves? What if that seemingly limitless source of jobs for our swelling labour force starts to run dry, whether this be due to economic nationalism (as in the case of Saudi Arabia with its policy favouring locals), border disputes (as in the case of Taiwan following the shooting by our coast guard of their fishermen), or some other unknown factor? What then?

Without this safety valve, will our conservative leaders still manage to keep an ironclad lid on our social cauldron? Even before it comes to a boil, they need to re-examine the basic framework for growth and development that has embodied their consensus for thirty odd years. In the past they have been good at socialising the cost of their projects and privatising the (super-) profits. It is time that we gear up the state to be able to fund development and innovative risk-takers and to capture a fair share of their rents for our people’s benefit.

Independence

Kim — Mon, 17 Jun 2013 09:17:15 +0000

The Philippines celebrated its 115th Independence Day last June 12. And as expected, there were the usual pronouncements of doubt and mockery whether country was really free or not. Some even went on to entertain revisionist views on the actual date of independence saying that the date is meaningless since the country was only left on its own by the Americans on July 4, 1946.

As someone old enough to have lived at a time when the two biggest American military bases outside the United States were in the country, I find it both odd and funny, that the question on the country’s independence are being noisily raised online by those born after the US bases were booted out of the country.

While I cannot blame these younger Filipinos’ having a revisionist view of history, I cannot understand why they are capable of raising issues on the independence day’s verity and yet they are incapable of understanding the significance of June 12 in the continuing struggle for the country’s independence.

I am of the opinion that those who constantly raise the question whether the country today is independent or not are under the influence of those who fail to understand and appreciate the sacrifices made by those who died in the battles against the Spanish, the Americans, the Japanese and even against fellow Filipinos belonging to various sides of political persuasions. And I do think that those who latch on to this view relied only on the perspective of their cynical Philippine history teachers without even trying to understand the country’s history on their own.

A country’s independence day is remembered because it was the day when the people of that territory declared themselves free from oppression of a foreign power. It is a characteristic of state which is reserved only for colonized, enslaved or oppressed nations. But more often than not, that day of declaration of independence marks not the end of the struggle for freedom, but only the beginning. As such it is misleading, as it is wrong to view independence day as the day when freedom from oppression was achieved.

When the Philippines declared its independence on June 12, 1898, it was proclaiming to the world that it will no longer bear the yoke that Spain has placed upon the country for more than three centuries. It was proudly standing up against the oppressor and claiming its right to stand free and proud of all that the Divine has endowed it. At the same time, it was also warning the colonizer that if need be, it will defend its claimed freedom to the death.

While there have always been questions raised on the Act of Declaration itself, specially in the message it contains between the lines and its references to what Aguinaldo always liked calling as the benevolent North American nation. A reading however of some authorities on history (I suggest OD Corpuz’s Saga and Triumph and Floro Quibuyen’s A Nation Aborted), will allow one to have an idea of the dynamics which made these things come to pass. And it will also grant us the understanding how we as a people, often in awe of foreigners, are easily swayed from that which we really want for ourselves, out of our generosity for these new found friends.

But the politics of 1898 should not reduce in any way, the sacrifices of martyrs like Fr. Jose Burgos, Jacinto Zamora and Mariano Gomez in 1872. It should not dilute the blood spilled by selfless Katipuneros who fought in the opening days of the revolution in August 1896. And it should not erase from our memory images of dead revolucionarios in the trenches, the hills and the towns who fought, first against the Spanish and then later against the Americans, to preserve the freedom they have decided to claim for themselves and for future generations of Filipinos.

It is only proper that we, later generations of Filipinos, beneficiaries of the freedoms fought for by our founding fathers and mothers, our revolucionarios, our soldiers, our guerrillas, our activists, remember Independence Day as the day when these selfless Filipinos offered their lives and limbs, their sacred fortunes, for a vision of a free Philippines where their sons and daughters would live in full appreciation of their Divinely-decreed freedoms, able to decide and realize their own destinies.

The independence of a country is not about being totally unencumbered of any debt or affiliation with another, but it is about that country, particularly its people, being able to chart its course towards the future. Independence is about a nation being able to freely decide for itself which relationships with other countries will it best reap benefits and how it shall pursue these relationships.

Back in my childhood days, one of the prevailing themes in movies and books was the relationship between Filipinos and Americans, more particular Filipino women and American servicemen. And there was the constant depiction that the Philippines was what we’d call in Cebuano as “di’ ko beh” or someone who outwardly refuses and yet deep inside desires an object or treatment. Movies depicted how Filipinos blatantly want to be left alone by Americans but pining for the first opportunity to hook up with the man from the Land of the Big PX.

Of course, all that changed on September 16,1991, when the Senate of the Philippines said that it will have no more of American military presence in a country which was free and democratic. And that single act of ending a half century of US domination of Philippine political and military affairs was one manifestation of the country’s never-ending struggle for independence. Since that day, we have been virtually on our own. Floating freely in the Pacific and facing various demands of statehood such as issues in the economy, governance, education and national defense.

A decade later, the Americans returned supposedly under the benevolent purposes of the Global War on Terror. But unlike a century earlier, they are no longer able to claim huge swaths of Filipino land as American. I wonder though how long they plan to continue staying considering that the War on Terror has already eliminated its number one target.

The presence of these American servicemen should wake us up to the reality that struggle for independence never ends. And in the decade since they were expelled out of the country, we have not progressed much in terms of defending our territory. If before we struggled against the Spanish, Americans and Japanese, now we are fighting to stave off the Chinese and Taiwanese from claiming our lands and seas.

These challenges to the territorial integrity of our country now threaten our sovereignty as a people. These encroachments on our lands and waters endanger our independence. And as a nation we must confront these issues soon else we wake up one day and see another flag raised in islands just beyond our weekend beaches.

If we desire to remain free and independent then we must constantly struggle against aggressive countries, ambitious politicians and big business. The celebration of our Independence Day is there to remind us of what others before us fought for. And it should also make us ask ourselves what we should be fighting for.

Fathers in fiction

Jay Salazar — Sun, 16 Jun 2013 08:30:58 +0000

Observed on the third Sunday of June by a number of countries, including our own, Father’s Day is an occasion for us to salute our fathers for their efforts, to reflect on how they have shaped and sustained our lives, and to celebrate fatherhood in general, including your own, if applicable (the jury is still out on owners of virtual pets, though).

The list that follows below was prompted by a writing assignment for Father’s Day in which I sought to follow a line of inquiry that seemed to me suitable for the event: how are fathers represented in our fiction? While the assignment ended up being shelved, I found the results of my research—which, owing to time constraints, must be understood as highly preliminary and provisional—to be intriguing: in three major works of Philippine literature, the father, even if acknowledged as heavily influential, is a present absence, invoked only in thought and speech by the other characters. Whether this is a symptom of a more general condition in our landscape of letters remains to be seen, but it is certainly worth mulling over, both as a phenomenon unto itself and as an indication of how fathers and fatherhood are made sense of in the larger arena of Philippine culture. (Elsewhere in the world, the novelist Andrew Martin explored the same issue in the realm of British fiction when he was asked to write and present the BBC documentary Disappearing Dad, and found that, in his survey of the English literary tradition, fathers are often missing or quickly done away with, as in children’s stories: “In the course of filming, I looked at a whole library-shelf full of children’s books, and dad had been killed off in almost every one.”)

Aeneas’ Flight from Troy (1598) by Federico Barocci. Oil on canvas. Courtesy of Wikipedia.org.

Duke Briseo
in Florante at Laura (1838) by Francisco Balagtas

Brought to life by way of the recollections of his son Florante, who for a good part of the poem is tied to a tree in a dark forest, bemoaning the cruel fate that has befallen him and those whom he loves, Duke Briseo is characterized as a father who practiced what might be known today as “tough love”. Florante declares that parental love involves ensuring that a child must not be indulged, spoiled, or cocooned in pleasure away from the world, for—in line with the long-held notion that suffering leads to improvement—he will be unable to develop the necessary fortitude to withstand the trials and tribulations of life otherwise, citing his own experience of growing up in what are arguably some of the darkest lines in Baltazar’s metrical romance:

“Pag-ibig anaki’y aking nakilala,
‘di dapat palakihin ang bata sa saya;
at sa katuwaa’y kapag namihasa,
kung lumaki’y walang hihinting ginhawa.”

“Sapagkat ang mundo’y bayan ng hinagpis,
namamaya’y sukat tibayan ang dibdib;
lumaki sa tuwa’y walang pagtitiis …
anong ilalaban sa dahas ng sakit?”

“Ang taong magawi sa ligaya’t aliw,
mahina ang puso’t lubhang maramdamin;
inaakala pa lamang ang hilahil
na daratni’y ‘di na matutuhang bathin.”

“Para ng halamang lumaki sa tubig,
daho’y malalanta munting ‘di madilig;
ikinaluluoy ang sandaling init;
gayundin ang pusong sa tuwa’y maniig.”

“Munting kahirapa’y mamalakhing dala,
dibdib palibhasa’y ‘di gawing magbata,
ay bago sa mundo’y walang kisapmata,
ang tao’y mayroong sukat ipagdusa.”

“Ang laki sa layaw karaniwa’y hubad
sa bait at muni’t sa hatol ay salat;
masaklap na bunga ng maling paglingap,
habag ng magulang sa irog na anak.”

“Sa taguring bunso’t likong pagmamahal,
ang isinasama ng bata’y nunukal;
ang iba’y marahil sa kapabayaan
ng dapat magturong tamad na magulang.”

Florante reveals that at one point, Briseo risks the grief of his wife Floresca to send his son, then 11 years old, to faraway Athens in order to study under the eminent and kindly teacher Antenor for nearly a decade. Floresca passes away before Florante can return, but, in spite of this unfortunate incident, Florante does not seem to resent his father’s decision, and in fact hails Briseo for the lessons that he has imparted, as well as mourns his beheading at the hands of the treacherous Count Adolfo.

Don Rafael Ibarra
in Noli Me Tangere (1887) by José Rizal

Don Rafael Ibarra, the richest man in the town of San Diego, is widely known to be just and honorable, and so it is a shock to his son Crisostomo when he comes home from Europe after seven years and finds out from Señor Guevara, an old lieutenant, that Rafael died in prison, accused, among other things, of being a subversive and a heretic. Worse, Crisostomo eventually discovers that Rafael was denied a proper place for his final rest: though initially placed in a grave, his body was later ordered exhumed and transferred to the Chinese cemetery, but ended up being tossed by the gravedigger into the river, on account of the weight of the corpse and the inclement weather. Determined to continue his beloved father’s good work, Crisostomo strives as best as he can to avoid trouble, even when he learns that Father Dámaso, the former curate of his hometown, had precipitated the persecution of his father, and considers him an enemy as well. Crisostomo finds that he cannot help himself, however, when, at a dinner hosted by Captain Tiago, which follows the ill-omened laying of the cornerstone of the schoolhouse that Crisostomo orders built for the village, Dámaso, “getting fat from so much scolding and so many beatings”, appears and makes a point of insulting not only him, which he already did from the pulpit earlier that day, but also his father: outraged, Crisostomo pounces upon the portly Franciscan and takes up a sharp knife as if meaning to kill him, condemning the friar for insulting “what is to a son the most sacred of memories”, and challenging the members of the gathering to do the same:

“You who are here, priests, judges, could you see your aging father go without sleep for you, separate himself from you for your welfare, die of sadness in prison, sighing just to hold you, seeking one person to console him, alone, sick, while you are abroad… Could you later hear his name dishonored, could you find his tomb empty when you wanted to pray over it? No? You say nothing! Then condemn him!” (From the translation by Harold Augenbraum)

Don Lorenzo Marasigan
in A Portrait of the Artist as a Filipino: An Elegy in Three Scenes (1952) by Nick Joaquin

Also referred to as “el Magnifico”, the same epithet associated with Lorenzo de’ Medici, the ruler of the Republic of Florence during the Italian Renaissance and patron of such notable artists as Michelangelo Buonarotti and Sandro Botticelli, Don Lorenzo Marasigan is a scholar, a patriot who fought in the war for Philippine independence from Spain, and an artist who is said to have been a rival to no less than Juan Luna. While he never appears onstage during the performance, which is set in a house in Intramuros just before World War II, his presence, indexed by the titular painting that hangs on the fourth wall and thus is invisible to the audience, exerts great power. The great canvas, painted about a year before the narrative present of the play, depicts a scene described in the Roman epic Aeneid by Virgil: Aeneas carrying his father Anchises on his back as they flee the doomed city of Troy (Ascanius, the son of Aeneas, is, curiously, not included). What makes the picture a striking and—for most of the characters—disturbing sight is that both figures bear the face of Lorenzo: one as a young man, and the other as an old man. Because of Lorenzo’s reputation, the dual self-portrait provokes fierce competing interests: Candida and Paula, the daughters who live with Lorenzo, refuse to sell the work despite the poverty that creeps upon them day by day, while their siblings and the other characters urge them to give it up, together with the decrepit family house and the once-glorious days that it represents. As their lives slowly unravel, Candida and Paula struggle to hold fast to their values, and they become estranged from one another for a time. Finally, Paula realizes that the painting reveals a path to emancipation, albeit not the kind that the people around them keep urging them to seek, and sets her feet firmly upon it, taking her sister with her—a bold, if not reckless choice that reunites them with Lorenzo:

CANDIDA: May God forgive me for ever having desired the safeness of mediocrity!

PAULA (rising and drawing her sister up): Then stand up, Candida—stand up! We are free again! We are together again—you and I and father. Yes—and father too! Don’t you see, Candida? This is the sign he has been waiting for—ever since he gave us that picture, ever since he offered us our release—the sign that we had found our faith again, that we had found our courage again! Oh, he was waiting for us to take this step, to make this gesture—this final, absolute, magnificent, unmistakable gesture!

CANDIDA: And now we have done it!

PAULA: We have recognized our true vocation!

CANDIDA: We have taken our final vows!

PAULA: And we have placed ourselves irrevocably on his side!

CANDIDA: Does he know?

PAULA: Oh yes, yes!

CANDIDA: Have you told him?

PAULA: But what need is there to tell him?

CANDIDA (rapturously): Oh Paula!

PAULA: He knows, he knows!

CANDIDA: And he has forgiven us at last! He has forgiven us, Paula!

PAULA: And we will stand with him?

CANDIDA: Contra mundum!

The Villain of the Story

Cocoy — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 08:44:28 +0000

Much has been written about “hackers”, self-described cyber-vigilantes like these guys— cynics and anarchists, self-styled to follow V, and not realizing that V at the end of the story gave his life that a new V— one who wasn’t an anarchist needed to be born. The modus operandi of these self-styled hooligans seem of course focused on proving one alleged ability. Create mayhem, disruption for the sake of mayhem and destruction under the guise of “helping the masses”. Here’s your chance to call the president! to make your issues known! As if there weren’t avenues to talk to the President on the media, on blogs, on Facebook, on twitter. As if, we have a president who tramples on all these. As if, actions like these don’t force governments to create weapons or to find ways to use PRISM.

Actions like these are uncalled for. And only wish to seek attention. Something, Hackers don’t really crave. What these so called hackers are doing is a far cry from the ethical foundations set forth in The Manifesto of old, where hackers hack because it was a way to learn; to go beyond the petty limitations of society.

See, these are not the kind of “hackers”, and “hacks” that should be honored. Real hackers scratch an itch so bad that they can’t stop thinking about it. The itch is so compelling you can’t stop thinking about it. Real hackers are idealists, and dreamers. Hackers build. And it doesn’t matter if it was C or hacking DNA!

Other professions can relate to this. Artists, lawyers, engineers, scientists, journalists, politicians and others can relate to that itch like this unknown mathematician who proved the elusive property of prime numbers. He was just an ordinary guy who even worked from a Subway sandwich shop.

The real hackers we should be praising are guys like these from Davao. The Pagesnapp guys bested 40 teams and they get to pitch before angel investors in Silicon Valley.

The people who we should be praising and finding are guys like these who, without coding experience are trying to save some languages from going extinct. Think of what things like this could be done to our own dialects and languages!

Hacking is a humble quality. It isn’t about proving how smart you are. It isn’t about mayhem. It rarely is about protest. It isn’t about proving you can find stuff. It is one that comes from solving real world problems. Real hackers scratch an itch so compelling you can’t stop thinking about it. It rarely is even about protest. Otherwise you’re the bully. You’re the Villain in the story.

Live and let love

Manuel Buencamino — Tue, 11 Jun 2013 09:44:53 +0000

“It’s always easier to organize around intolerance, narrow-mindedness, and false nostalgia” – Barack Obama

I was surprised by the silence of the LGBT community over the statement of Fr. Melvin Castro, executive secretary of the Catholic Bishops’ Conference of the Philippines Episcopal Commission on Family and Life (CBCP-ECFL), regarding singer Charice Pempengco’s admission that she is a lesbian.

Fr. Castro said, “In this time of her life that she is experiencing an identity crisis regarding her sexual orientation, we would rather not pre-judge her…. Let’s hope that there will be people out there that will help guide her with her sexual orientation called same-sex attraction…We should help her journey with this same-sex attraction situation so that she will know that having a same-sex attraction does not mean that she has to engage in a [homosexual] relationship…. This, I think, is where her family and friends should come in and intervene to help her.”

That is prejudice dressed in pseudo-clinical jargon. Fr. Castro’s remarks can be excused if he had clarified that his comment on Charice’s sexuality was based on the teachings of his church. But he did not. Instead he diagnosed her clinically, as someone suffering from an identity crisis because of her sexual orientation and prescribed intervention as the cure for a malady that makes her want to engage in female to female sex.

Can Fr. Castro prove that sexuality is a choice rather than in-born? Besides, why does it matter if sexuality is in-born or a matter of choice? Outside of religious beliefs and ignorance, can one say that one form of sexuality is superior to another and that one is wrong and the other right? Why is sexuality even an issue in a pluralistic democracy? I’m at a loss as to why Fr. Castro felt impelled to comment negatively on Charice’s sexuality. Was he afraid that an epidemic of lesbianism will follow in the wake of Charice’s admission?

My online encyclopedia says “Heterosexism is a system of attitudes, bias, and discrimination in favor of opposite-sex sexuality and relationships. It can include the presumption that opposite-sex attractions and relationships are the only norm and therefore superior.”

Heterosexism leads to non-heterosexuals being regarded as second class citizens who deserve to be deprived of “various legal and civil rights, economic opportunities, and social equality.”

Fellow columnist Marie Yuviengco pointed that out in her essay, Marriage Pinoy-style. She cited legislated discrimination against non-heterosexuals. What kind of society would enact laws that legalize and legitimize discrimination? Ms. Yuviengco urged Charice to “campaign for the changes that have been so long overdue.” Rightly so.

In this country, the wall separating Church and State is porous, laws that are based on religion-specific values are enforced on both believers and non-believers alike. We are not the only democracy struggling with this problem. US president Barack Obama’s speech explaining his personal position on abortion and the role of the religiously motivated in a pluralistic democracy showed that America is also in the same bind.

“Democracy demands that the religiously motivated translate their concerns into universal, rather than religion-specific, values. It requires that their proposals be subject to argument, and amenable to reason. I may be opposed to abortion for religious reasons, but if I seek to pass a law banning the practice, I cannot simply point to the teachings of my church or evoke God’s will. Now this is going to be difficult for some who believe in the inerrancy of the Bible, as many evangelicals do. But in a pluralistic democracy, we have no choice. Politics depends on our ability to persuade each other of common aims based on a common reality. It involves the compromise, the art of what’s possible. At some fundamental level, religion does not allow for compromise. It’s the art of the impossible,” he said. Obama’s insight also applies to the religion-specific opposition to same-sex marriage, divorce, and the RH Law.

Charice knew her sexuality at age five but she was forced to hide it until she was 21. She was locked up in a closet for 16 years! There are many Charices out there who are also locked up, unable to live and love freely, because of the intolerance and narrow-mindedness of our society. Fr. Castro encourages that mentality and in so doing fuels and perpetuates the prejudice and discrimination – the injustice – that non-heterosexuals have to suffer. Where is the outrage?

The Philippine Growth Spurt: will it last?

Doy Santos aka The Cusp — Fri, 31 May 2013 22:00:54 +0000

Image credit: NSCB.gov.ph

The latest release of GDP growth figures showed an upward growth spurt for the country. From a growth of 6.8 per cent for 2012 (revised up from initial estimates) to an unexpected year-on-year growth of 7.8 per cent in the first quarter of 2013, the numbers seem to provide both a strong signal to the world that the country now is back in business and a platform for the government to claim that its policy of pursuing clean, honest governance is paying off.

Having outpaced the growth of countries like China (7.7 per cent), Indonesia (6 per cent), Thailand (5.3 per cent) and Vietnam (4.9 per cent), and having done so on the back of an expansion of manufacturing and construction, has led some commentators to claim that the country has turned a corner or reached a “tipping point” from where it would now be on solid footing on a higher growth path.

There are only three things to point out here.

The first is the blindingly obvious: one quarter’s performance does not make up a trend. We cannot make any projections regarding future prospects based on this single observation. I would argue, not even the performance of the last 18 months proves anything. Remember 1997 when we thought we were about to take off? For those who were old enough to recall, remember what happened next? The same thing can be said of today’s situation.

Second is for us not to downplay the effect of the recently concluded elections. Malacañang has stated that this was an unusual GDP growth result for a non-presidential election year. You would expect them to say that, but the problem with their argument is the automation of elections, which makes campaigns more expensive by all accounts as cheating can no longer be achieved centrally at the provincial or municipal levels, as was the case prior to automation, but has to be done at the retail, grass roots level through vote buying.

We cannot discount the fact, particularly in this election which was dominated by entrenched political families, that money might have flowed massively unlike previous midterm elections. This would have meant that provincial and municipal incumbents hit the pork barrel pretty hard in the opening months of the year in a bid to prove to constituents that they were hard at work.

Government spending and construction growth were consistent with this view, along with financial intermediation, which again could have been linked to this. That does not necessarily mean that all this spending went to waste. It just means that a large component of the first quarter growth was seasonal in nature: determined as it was by the political-business cycle.

The third and final point I would make is that the Philippines becoming the fastest growing economy in the region is more about China decelerating than it catching up to China. The two are interlinked though. Let me explain.

During the last decade, China was the workshop of the world. It basically drained the swamp for ASEAN sucking in much of the foreign direct investments in manufacturing. During this time, the Philippines suffered a hollowing out of its industrial base, what little of it that it had.

At some point in this period, China’s income per capita overtook the Philippines’. Demographically, China also started to face the consequences of their one child policy as labour started becoming scarce as investments in China’s interior slowed the migration of workers out to the prosperous coastal regions.

The newly installed Chinese president has also indicated that the government would not sacrifice the environment in pursuing economic growth. Much social unrest now stems from pollution. They are seeking to transition the country away from its dependence on exports and investment. China has basically lost its cost competitiveness and will now have to grapple with the challenges of being a middle income economy.

Early this year, it was reported that inward foreign investments into ASEAN have for the first time equalled that of China. A structural realignment is now taking place. Bangladesh, Vietnam, Myanmar and Cambodia are now the new Chinas. The Philippines could perhaps be benefiting from this trend as well. It probably has less to do with what the government is doing, and more to do with external factors, as I have just mentioned.

All this now puts the onus on government, however, not to “muck things up”. Recall how it inadvertently pulled down growth back in 2011 when it pursued a de facto austerity policy? Let me take the opposing view now and say that this could be the start of a trend, a structural break in economic parlance. In that scenario the one thing that could potentially derail it is the “noise” that we create. Happily for the administration, it won a rare majority in the Senate and kept control of the house (assuming its alliances hold).

The mystery now is what it plans to do with that majority. The ball is in its court. If this sudden growth spurt is to be maintained, then for the next three years, the Aquino government will have to work hard to unclog the investment pipeline in infrastructure, skills and energy that are needed to power its economy through.

Will things like charter change, the proposed Bangsamoro autonomous region, territorial disputes with our neighbours or some completely unexpected Black Swan event throw us off course? That I suppose is the burning question of the day.

Vetoed

Cocoy — Wed, 29 May 2013 23:17:31 +0000

Lately, the President has vetoed two bills filled during the 15th Congress. They are the Centenarians Bill and the Internally Displaced Persons bill. The former— because the palace argued (and rightly so!) that a 75% discount without any benefit to business was grossly unfair. The latter, hailed as an important piece of legislation that no less than the United Nations lauds its passage.

Oops.

The President has argued had constitutional flaws in the Internally Displaced Persons bill that gave the Commission on Human Rights more power than it should have. Of course, Congress could fix this by going into session and with two-thirds voting separately make it into law. Congress of course isn’t in session, since we just had an election. So yes, no chance to fix the Internally Displaced Persons bill.

Another bill also opposed by the President and his men— the establishment of the Department of Information and Communications Technology on austerity grounds. That bill passed before the Senate and the House never made it to the President’s desk for a proper veto. Instead it has languished in the netherworld. A bill that made it through both houses of Congress, a bill that spent gazillions of hours and winds up as dead before it was even born.

Also two laws passed during the 15th Congress have pending questions before the Supreme Court. The unconstitutionality of both the Cybercrime Prevention Act and the Reproductive Health Law are being challenged. The former, by more than 15 petitions challenging 29 provisions of the law to be unconstitutional, which really means the law, if ever the Supreme Court strikes down all 29 means, what else is left other than words strung together to form some cohesive, but ultimately worthless sentences. On the latter, challenged before the Supreme Court by hardline conservatives led by the Catholic Bishop’s Conference of the Philippines who seemingly forgot to learn some reading, and some comprehension in school.

My point in bringing all this up that the 15th Congress doesn’t seem to have a good track record of bringing out decent bills. We really can’t blame coordination between the palace and the Congress. For one thing, I happen to like the fact that the President vetoes bills he thinks shouldn’t become the law of the land. How I wished he did this for the idiotic Cybercrime Prevention Act, but that’s what we have the Supreme Court for, and why we live in a democracy. It is nice to know that no one is sleeping in the Palace. It is also nice to know that Congress, while being a close ally of this President, isn’t merely a rubber stamp Congress. That they do write laws. Sometimes laws that may not sit well with the administration.

It is embarrassing that legislation like the Centenarians Bill gets passed– an extremely populist bill by the way it gives a 75% discount, and let businesses shoulder the cost that no one seem to have bothered to oppose it. Or maybe it just wasn’t so newsworthy that no one knew about it. Why wasn’t there a hardline opposition to it during deliberations. Surely, Congress would have asked the executive for some opinion? Right?

And what about the Department of Information and Communications Technology? At a time when the nation needs better policy on ICT, and to implement that roadmap it goes away for budgetary reasons. On the surface, it seem like a fair way to assess it. We do have a nation that can hardly afford anything. Why wasn’t there a greater debate on the matter? If the bill wasn’t ready why did it get passed?

I think the problem here is the leadership in both houses of Congress. It has to be smarter than this. If a bill like the Internally Displaced Persons bill is highly important— why isn’t the Congress fighting tooth and nail to get it passed? Again, they would have known when this bill would find itself on the President’s desk. So why did it fail? What then does this speak to us about the current leadership in Congress? What does this mean, moving forward? Is it really an independent body? Where is the fire in the belly, is all I am asking, especially in the Senate. Maybe old hats need to take it easy and give the younger boys and girls a seat at the table.

Why the DOJ’s Cybercrime initiative is a failed project

Cocoy — Tue, 28 May 2013 06:27:34 +0000

The Philippine Department of Justice wants to revive the Cybercrime Law. The head of the Department of Justice’s Cybercrime office, Geronimo Sy said that they are dropping the online libel provisions of the bill. According to Sy, the Department of Justice was never pushing for the Online Libel provisions of the bill. Justice Secretary Leila de Lima endorses the new measure.

GMA 7 quoted the Justice Secretary saying: “We will be proposing certain improvements of the Cyber Prevention Act, but of course we need to wait for the action of the Supreme Court (SC) in the pending petition. (Pero) kahit ano mangyari doon sa petisyon na yun sa SC, we are contemplating introducing or proposing to Congress certain enhancements.”

Not only about Online Libel
Of course that was never the heart of the problem. The Online Libel provisions, were in fact, one of many problems with Republic Act 10175 or the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012. There are fifteen petitions before the Supreme Court seeking the high court to declare the law, unconstitutional. The petitioners raised a total of 29 issues against the Cybercrime Prevention Act of 2012, and Online Libel is just one of those 29. The issues are as follows, as per the Supreme Court’s website:

	Provision	Description	Petitioner’s Argument	Sol Gen’s Argument
I.	Sec. 4(a)(1)	Makes access to the whole or part of a computer system without right a cybercrime;	Failure to meet strict scrutiny standards (PIFA, et al. Petition)	“The application of strict scrutiny is not called for because Section 4(a)(1) regulates hacking, a socially harmful conduct; it does not regulate, prevent or punish speech.” “Considering that illegal access is globally recognized as a offense against the confidentiality, integrity and availability of computer data and systems, the Philippines has no reason not to include the same”
II.	Sec. 4(a)(3)	Makes the intentional or reckless alteration, damaging, deletion or deterioration of computer data, electronic document or electronic data message without right including the introduction or transmission of viruses, a cybercrime;	Violation of freedom of expression guarantee (Reyes, et al. Petition)	“Section 4(a)(3) penalizes conduct, not speech.” Section 4(a)(3) regulates data interference because it is socially harmful conduct. It does not regulate, prevent or punish speech. “The protected legal interest here is the integrity and proper functioning of or use of stored computer data or computer programs.”
III.	Sec. 4(a)(6)	Makes the acquisition of a domain name over the internet in bad faith, for profit, to mislead or destroy reputation and deprive others from registering the name a cybercrime;	Violation of equal protection clause (PIFA, et al. Petition)	“The difficulty in tracing the real perpetrators of cybercrimes or persons using aliases cannot be a deterrent to the passage and implementation of the law. The cybercrime law was enacted precisely to allow law enforcement authorities to go after the perpetrators of cybercrime whether they be known or hidden under the veil of pseudonyms. Besides, a person who commits a crime using his actual name is as guilty as a person who commits a crime using an alias. “Cybersquatting is the oldest and best-known form of nuisance in cyber space. Cybersquatters will generally either offer to sell the name back to the trademark owner for an extortionate price, or make money from internet traffic accidentally landing on their page. The practice is a nuisance for the growing number of companies that do business over the internet and are loath to lose valuable traffic to rogue websites.” “In our jurisdiction, Article 694 of the Civil Code defines a nuisance as ‘any act, omission, establishment, condition of property, or anything else which shocks, defies, or disregards decency or morality,’ the remedies of which are a prosecution under the Revised Penal Code or any local ordinance, a civil action, or abatement without judicial proceedings.”
IV.	Sec. 4(b)(3)	Makes the intentional acquisition, use, misuse, transfer, possession, alteration or deletion of identifying information belonging to another without right a cybercrime;	Violation of due process clause (Reyes, et al. Petition) Violation of right to privacy of communication and correspondence guarantee (Reyes, et al. Petition) Violation of the freedom of the press guarantee (Reyes, et al. Petition)	“Section 4(b)(3) is intended to protect one’s right to privacy and to protect one’s right to property. The offender’s rights to privacy and protected speech are irrelevant in computer-related offenses.” “Petitioner Reyes’ fear focus on the words ‘acquisition’ ‘transer’ and ‘possession’ in relation to journalists’ fundamental work of reporting information is unfounded.” “Petitioners Reyes’ fear can be easily soothed when the principle noscitur a sociis is applied. By noscitur a sociis, the correct construction of a word or phrase susceptible of various meanings may be made clear and specific by considering the company of words in which it is found or with which it is associated. “the words ‘intentional acquisition,’ ‘transfer,’ and ‘possession,’ must be associated with the term ‘identity theft’ and must be understood to mean any such acts done with the intention of appropriating another’s identity for acquisitorial use.”
V.	Sec. 4(c)(1)	Makes the willful engagement, maintenance, control, or operation, directly or indirectly of any lascivious exhibition of sexual organs or sexual activity, with the aid of a computer system, for favor or consideration a cybercrime;	Violation of freedom of expression clause (Guingona, et al. Petition)	“Congress, in enacting Section 4(c)(1), seeks to punish cyber prostitution, white slave trade and pornography for favour and consideration. This includes interactive prostitution and pornography, i.e., by webcam. “The risks to publishers of publishing ‘nude materials’ in the internet or to film producers of creating ‘artistic works’ is no different or greater than the ‘risks’ presently confronting them under Article 201 of the Revised Penal Code. Since 1932, Article 201 punishes ‘obscene publications and exhibitions and indecent shows.’ To date, Article 201 has not been declared unconstitutional.”
VI.	Sec. 4(c)(3)	Makes the transmission of commercial electronic communication with the use of computer systems seeking to advertise, sell or offer for sale products and services a cybercrime;	Violation of due process clause (ALAM, et al. Petition) Violation of equal protection clause (PIFA, et al. Petition)	“Unsolicited Commercial Communications or ‘SPAM’ is outlawed because worldwide, SPAM messages waste the storage and network capacities of Internet Service Providers (ISPs), and are simply offensive to the unwilling recipient.” Flooding the internet with useless and nuisance and bulk emails burden the internet networks and reduce the efficiency of commerce and technology. They also result to tremendous losses in revenue if left unpunished.” “Spam can, in principle, properly be considered a type of trespass-since it is a means by which the spammer uninvitedly use another’s property. Spam can also be considered a nuisance because of its substantial interference with the peaceful enjoyment of a property, which causes considerable amount of damage consisting of clogged disc spaces, network congestion, financial loss and loss of productivity.” “Spamming is at most commercial speech not worthy of constitutional protection. It is intrusive to the privacy of the internet users and unlawful appropriates the storage and network of ISPs without compensation and for profit. The government has an interest in the free, efficient flow of information, commercial technology in the Internet.”
VII.	Sec. 4(c)(4)	Makes libel as defined under Art. 355 of the Revised Penal Code when committed through a computer system or any other similar means a cybercrime;	Violation of due process clause (Biraogo Petition; Guingona Petition; Adonis, et al. Petition; Palatino et al. Petition; Reyes, et al. Petition; Sta. Maria et al. Petition; Castillo, et al. Petition; Cruz, et al. Petition; PBA, et al. Petition; NPCP et al. Petition; Violation of equal protection clause (Guingona Petition; Sta. Maria, et al. Petition; Castillo et al. Petition; NPCP, et al. Petition) Abridgment of freedom of speech, expression and press guarantees (Biraogo Petition; Disini, et al. Petition; Adonis, et al. Petition;	“Online libel is not a new crime. Online libel is a crime punishable under the Articles 353, in relation to Article 355 of the Revised Penal Code. Section 4(c)(4) just made express an avenue already covered by the term ’similar means’ under Article 355, to keep up with the times. This would immediately negate the oft-used defense that libel committed through the use of the internet is not punishable. That said, the relevant provisions of the Revised Penal Code on libel and jurisprudence on the subject gives ascertainable standards and well-defined parameters which would enable an accuses to determine the nature of his violation.” “The computer system is just another means of publication” “Libel committed through a computer system can therefore be defined as a public and malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead, committed through a computer system or any other similar means which may be devised in the future. “Libel is not constitutionally protected speech.” “even without Section 4(c)(4), a public malicious imputation of a crime, or of a vice or defect, real or imaginary, or any act, omission, condition, status, or circumstance tending to cause the dishonor, discredit, or contempt of a natural or juridical person, or to blacken the memory of one who is dead, made with the use of the computer system already constitutes libel. “online libel was already a crime punished under Articles 353 to 362 of the Revised Penal Code, and to date, has never been declared unconstitutional on the ground of abridging the right to free speech, freedom of expression and of the press. “it must be emphasized that cyber libel was not given a higher penalty under Section 4(c)(4). Notably, R.A. No. 10175 did not provide for a distinct penalty for Section 4(c)(4). The ‘one degree higher penalty’ was imposed under Section 6 for all the crimes under the Revised Penal Code and special penal laws committed with the use of ICT.“
			Violation of the rule on double jeopardy (NPCP, et al. Petition)
			Being a bill of attainder (NUJP, et. al. Petition)
			Being an ex post facto law (PIFA et al. Petition)	“libel committed by using computer system is punishable under Articles 353-362 of the Revised Penal Code. Section 4(c)(4) merely made expressed another venue for the commission of libel. Said addition does not make said provision ex post facto. Libelous statements made through computer systems prior to the enactment of R.A. No. 10175 are already considered punishable under the Revised Penal Code.”
			Violation of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights (Adonis, et al. Petition; Reyes, et al. Petition)	“Libel is unprotected speech. It remains to be a crime in many nations.” “The text of the ICCPR does not mandate the decriminalization of libel. In fact, ICCPR recognizes that the freedom carries with it special duties and responsibilities and may be subject to certain restrictions as are provided by law and as are necessary for the respect of the rights or reputations of others”
VIII.	Sec. 5	Declares the aiding or abetting in the commission of Cybercrime and the attempt in its commission as a cybercrime offense.	Violation of due process clause (Reyes, et al. Petition; Sta. Maria, et al. Petition; Cruz, et al. Petition; PBA, et al. Petition; NPCP, et al. Petition) Violation of equal protection clause (NPCP, et al. Petition) Violation of freedom of expression clause (NUJP, et al. Petition) Violation of rule on double jeopardy (NPCP, et al. Petition) Being a bill of attainder (NUJP, et al. Petition)	“A criminal statute does not become void just because of its reference to general terms, or in this case, of its use of the terms ‘aid’ or ‘abet,’ and ‘attempt.’ There is no constitutional or statutory duty on the part of the lawmakers to define every word in a law, as long as the intent can be gathered from the entire act.” “The test in determining the ambiguity of a statute is whether the words convey a sufficiently definite warning with respect to the proscribed conduct based on common understanding and practice. The words of a statute are interpreted in their plain and ordinary meaning. There is no need for absolute precision in order to appreciate the words of the statute. A reasonable degree of certainty and flexibility, with clearly delineated limitations, is acceptable.” “a person who is guilty of aiding and abetting is simply considered an accomplice. Section 5, when read together with Section 8, last paragraph of R.A. No. 10175, shows that a person guilty of aiding and abetting is penalized as an accomplice.” The laws on libel and as now contained in Section 4(c)(4) “do not operate as ‘prior restraints’ to speech. These libel acts provide for ‘subsequent punishment.’ Thus, petitioners are free toexercise their right to speak out. If what they express is libelous, then they risk subsequent punishment.
IX.	Sec. 6	Imposes a penalty one degree higher for crimes penalized by the Revised Penal Code and special laws, if committed with the use of information and communication technology.	Violation of due process clause (Guingona, et al. Petition; NUJP, et al. Petition; Cruz, et al. Petition; NPCP, et al. Petition) Violation of equal protection clause (Guingona, et al. Petition; Adonis, et al. Petition; Sta. Maria, et al. Petition; Cruz, PBA et al. Petition; NPCP, et al. Petition) Violation of freedom of expression clause (NUJP, et al. Petition; Cruz, et al. Petition; NPCP, et al. Petition) Violation of rule on double jeopardy (Disini et al. Petition; Reyes, et al. Petition; Sta. Maria, et al. Petition; NPCP, et al. Petition) Being a bill of attainder (NUJP, et al. Petition) Being incompatible with Art. 19, par. 3 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights on freedom of expression (PIFA, et al. Petition)	“The presumption is that the language used in a statue, which has a technical or well known legal meaning, is used in that sense by legislation.” “thus the first sentence of Section 6 is clear, delimited in scope and is valid.” “Double jeopardy is inherently a ‘procedural defense’ or a shield that forbids a defendant from being subjected to the possibility of being penalized twice, or being tried again on the same (or similar) charge following a legitimate acquittal or conviction. It is not a constitutional prohibition against laws that may present possible prosecution for an offense penalized under other laws or statutes. Hence, the mere possibility of prosecution for two separate offenses by itself would not render either law unconstitutional. The Supreme Court “has subscribed to the conclusiveness of an enrolled bill. It has consistently refused to invalidate a law or provision of law, on the ground that the bill from which it originated contained no such provision, and was merely inserted by the Bicameral Conference Committee of both houses. “The guaranty of the equal protection of the laws is not violated by a legislation based on a reasonable classification. The equal protection clause, therefore, does not preclude classification of individuals who may be accorded different treatment under the law as long as the classification is reasonable and not arbitrary.” The classification rests on substantial distinction because of the “scope of reach,” “accessibility,” and effect“ “Thus, due to this nature of the internet, any person with minimal equipment and once online can have the opportunity to create worldwide chaos or intrude into the privacy of others without much obstacle.” The principle purpose of the law is “to maintain minimum standards of decency, morality and civility in human society. The qualifying circumstance of use of ICT was included in Section 6 as means to deter the increasing commission of cyber offenses. “the increase in penalties under Section 6 of R.A. No. 10175 is, therefore justified and consistent with the policy of the law.” The Act is not a bill of attainder, “Section 6 does not seek to punish a status or a group but the action, i.e, using ICT to commit crimes.” “Section 6 does not punish internet users without the benefit of a trial. It merely makes the use of ICT a qualifying circumstance for all crimes and offenses. All elements including the use of ICT, must be established by proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
X.	Sec. 7	Provides that prosecution under this law is without prejudice to any liability for violation of the Revised Penal Code or special laws.	Violation of due process clause (NUJP, et al. Petition; Cruz, et al. Petition) Violation of equal protection clause (Disini et al. Petition; Sta. Maria, et al. Petition; NUJP, et al. Petition) Violation of freedom of expression clause (NUJP, et al. Petition; Cruz, et al. Petition) Violation of rule on double jeopardy (Disini et al. Petition; Guingona, et al. Petition; Adonis, et al. Petition; Reyes, et al. Petition; Sta. Maria, et al. Petition; NUJP, et al. Petition; PBA, et al. Petition)	Supreme court said that “when two different laws defines two crimes, prior jeopardy as to one does not bar prosecution of the other although both offenses arise from the same fact, if each crime, involve some important act which is not essential element of the other, the protection against double jeopardy is only for the same offense.”
XI.	Penal Provisions		Unconstitutional (Biraogo, et al. Petition)	“it is within the power of the legislature to determine what acts or omissions other than those set out in the Revised Penal Code or other existing statues are to be condemned as separate, individual crimes and what penalties should be attached thereto. This legislative power is not diluted or improperly wielded simply because at some prior time the act or omission was but an element or ingredient of another offense, or might usually have been connected with another crime.
XII.	Sec. 12	Authorizes law enforcement authorities, by technical means, after finding due cause, to collect or record traffic data in real-time, associated with specified communication transmitted by means of a computer system.	Violation of due process clause (Castillo, et al. Petition) Violation of freedom of expression clause (Biraogo, et al. Petition; Castillo, et al. Petition) Violation of rule on searches and seizures (Reyes, et al. Petition; Castillo et al. Petition, Cruz, et al. Petition; PBA, et al Petition) Allows warrantless electronic surveillance (NUJP et al. Petition) Violation of right to privacy (Reyes, et al. Petition; NUJP et al. Petition; Castillo et al. Petition, Cruz, et al. Petition; PBA, et al Petition)	The collection of traffic data will not result in any search or seizure of petitioner’s persons and/or property. The right to privacy does not extend to traffic data. Traffic data is non-content data that consists of the origin, destination, route, time, and date of the communication. The rationale for the collection of traffic data is analogous to the one used and recognized in a valid warrantless search of a moving vehicle and to that under exigent circumstances… under existing technology, it is quite impossible to describe the place, things and persons to be searched because what is originally posted or made available online or stored in local computer systems may be changed, removed, or passed on to another instantaneously. Real-time collection of traffic data is akin to the collection of information derived from visual surveillance of an open physical space and does not intrude into “private” space. There is no necessity to secure a warrant where there is no invasion of personal space. Because traffic data is non-content information, the Constitution does not require that it may be collected only upon the prior authority of a judicial warrant. No privacy can be expected from information revealed to or made available to a third party.
XIII.	Sec. 13	Preserves data.	Violation of due process clause (Palatino, et al. Petition) Violation of right to privacy (PIFA, et al. Petition)	Sec. 13 is directed to a service provider and not to individual users. Requirement under the first sentence of Sec. 13 is a mere amendment to the franchise of telephone companies. Sec. 13 only calls for the preservation of traffic data and subscriber information… The subscriber’s use and disposition of the preserved data are not being restricted.
XIV.	Sec. 14	Empowers law enforcement authorities, upon securing a search warrant, to issue an order requiring any person or service provider to disclose or submit traffic data within his possession or control.	Undue delegation of judicial powers to PNP and NBI (NUJP et al. Petition)	The order referred to in Sc. 14 is to be issued upon securing a court warrant. There is no need to conduct the search and seizure themselves, law enforcement agencies will just require or order the date custodian to produce the relevant data. It’s done pursuant to a court issued warrant. The power to issue subpoena is inherent in the power to investigate and may thus be exercised by the law enforcement authorities. Having subpoena powers does not necessarily clothe law enforcement agencies with judicial power.
XV.	Sec. 15	Defines the powers and duties of law enforcement authorities in the implementation of the search and seizure warrant	Undue delegation of judicial powers to PNP (NUJP et al. Petition) Being an unlawful search and seizure (Palatino, et al. Petition)	Search and seizure is a plainly law enforcement function. This Honorable Court already recognized the authority of law enforcement agencies to seize, retain, and destroy computer hardware and software containing pornographic materials in violation of Art 201 of the Revised Penal Code.
XVI.	Sec. 17	Authorizes service providers and law enforcement authorities, upon expiration of the periods under Sec. 13 and 15 to immediately and completely destroy the computer data subject of a preservation and examination.	Violation of due process clause (Reyes, et al. Petition; Palatino, et al. Petition)	Sec 17 merely provides for a process of clearing up – the telcos’ systems to avoid overloading their storage capacity. The clean up protects individuals from unnecessary delay in the investigation and prosecution of a cybercrime.
XVII.	Sec. 19	Authorizes Department of Justice to issue an order to restrict or block access to computer data found prima facie to be in violation of RA 10175	Violation of due process clause (Disini, et al. Petition; Guingona, et al. Petition; Sta. Maria, et al. Petition; NUJP, et al. Petition; Castillo, et al. Petition; Cruz, et al. Petition; NPCP, et al. Petition) Being an unlawful search and seizure (Guingona, et al. Petition; Castillo, et al. Petition; Cruz, et al. Petition; NPCP, et al. Petition) Violation of right to privacy of communication (Sta. Maria, et al. Petition; Castillo, et al. Petition; NPCP, et al. Petition) Violation of freedom of expression clause (Sta. Maria, et al. Petition; Cruz, et al. Petition) Violation of rule on double jeopardy (Sta. Maria, et al. Petition) Undue delegation of legislative authority (Disini, et al. Petition) Being a grant of unbridled power to the Sec. of Justice to act as a “judge, jury and executioner” of all cyber crime related complaints (Disini, et al. Petition; Reyes, et al. Petition) Undue delegation of judicial function (Adonis, et al. Petition; NUJP, et al. Petition)	Sec. 10 is an impermissible final restraint on the freedoms of speech and expression. Sec. 19 seeks to restrain access to, circulation and dissemination of computer data prima facie found to be violative of the provisions of RA 10175. It covers not just conduct but broadly and dangerously sweeps speech. DOJ’s findings are unprotected speech and expression. It does not provide for constitutionally mandated procedural safeguards that would justify final restraint.
XVIII.	Sec. 20	Penalizes any person who fails to comply with the order from law enforcement authorities.	Violation of right to privacy of communication and correspondence (Biraogo, et al. Petition) Violation of freedom of expression clause (Biraogo, et al. Petition) Being a bill of attainder (NUJP, et al. Petition)	Sec. 20, by its reference to PD No. 1829, clearly sets the definitive elements that will constitute non-compliance. A person must still be prosecuted for obstruction of justice and thereafter, proven to have knowingly or willfully defied the orders of law enforcement authorities before he will be penalized for non-complaince.
XIX.	Sec. 24	Gives the CICC the power to formulate a national cyber security plan	Undue delegation of legislative power (NUJP, et al. Petition)	Powers of the CICC with respect to enactment of relevant laws, issuances, measures, and policies is merely recommendatory. A perusal of Sec. 2 of RA 10175 readily reveals that the policy of the State deals with the “interest of law and order,” “public interest,” and “justice and equity” are sufficient standards.

How to fix the cybercrime law
The underlying rational for Cybercrime Law isn’t of course evil. In fact, we should have one. The problem of course stems from the draconian implementation, and the misreading of what the Internet is, what the opportunities that it provides not just for individuals but for the economy of a nation, and the myriad dangers online that the government needs to be able to protect or defend from.

Any law that seeks to address these fundamental dangers must be grounded first in protecting civil rights.

This age we are living now is on the corner of the 20th and 21st centuries. We have a nation on the cusp of change, but in many ways remain decades behind. Still, we are faced with increasing threats not just individually on Cyberspace like Identity Theft, like malware, but on a national level, as the nation recently experienced with our brushoff with Taiwan.

The dangers are many. The dangers are myriad. And we are not prepared to meet it head on.

Perhaps, the problem is as many Philippine problems are— rooted in incapacity. Incapacity to build for the future. Whether or not the Philippines is ready, the threats are there. There is no stopping it.

Amy Davidson of the New Yorker recently wrote a review of Star Trek into Darkness, asking if the movie was a drone allegory. She wrote, “The dialogue contains several reminders that, confronted by danger, we must not forget “who we are”—one comes in a speech that Kirk gives at the very end. One fears that what he means is not that he should remember that he is an officer in a society governed by laws—and for good reason—but that he is James Tiberius Kirk. The only real conclusion in the movie is that Kirk should trust his instincts, and carry on meaning well and standing up for his friends. President Obama is due to give a big speech on Thursday about counterterrorism, drones, detainees, and everything he’s trying to do in that space. For a President who has been accused of being Spock-like, his approach to national security and the law has been far too Kirk-like: driven by a belief that his good will alone, his character, compensates for legal limbos like Guantánamo and discredits the anger, here and abroad, about drones. He remembers who he is, and thinks that that should be enough. He’s wrong; what we need to remember is what America is, and ought to be.”

In many ways, I think this mirrors our own brush with Cybercrime Law. I think it boils down to the question: who we are as a nation. Who we are as a society, and as a people. I’d like to ask Secretary de Lima, President Aquino, and Members of Congress this: who do you want the nation to be decades down the road.

Daan Matuwid is built on the premise that without corruption, our nation can be better. So it asks the nation to pay the right taxes. It takes on the fight to oust Renato Corona as Chief Justice. The President is adamant to get his predecessor to answer for her alleged crimes against the nation. The argument is right. How can we as a nation become better if these crimes go unanswered?

In the same respect, what kind of a nation are we building with laws like the Cybercrime Prevention Act? What does it say about us as a people? What does it say about where our leaders are taking us?

So what we need is legislation that looks towards the future. Democracy.net.ph says, we need a holistic approach to cybercrime legislation. We need to look at it from the perspective of Civil Rights, Governance, Development and Security. Which is why the group is proposing the Magna Carta for Philippine Internet Freedom. In fact, it was filed before the Senate during the 15th Congress, and the group is working hard to get is filed before the 16th Congress when it opens and perhaps get it passed.

So legislation must take account people’s rights. It needs to be grounded on that. The Constitution of course guarantees the bill of rights. It is more than that. We need to legislate that the Internet be viewed as a place where truth and beauty is created. Where culture thrives.

Legislation on the Internet also needs to address the “problem” of the Philippines with respect to building capacity. So there should be an economic component. The Internet you see is viewed in similar terms to a railway, a highway, a farm to market road, electricity, and ports. It boosts productivity. So the government needs this. Raise the economy through the use of ICT, and not just because there are BPOs, but because ordinary companies are more productive when decks are sent faster. When Employees can communicate through Voice Over IPs or at the very least, reliable telephony.

The threats to security are profound. We are faced with nation-states building Cyber Armies. We are faced with non-state actors like Anonymous conducting denial of service attacks. It is a reverse Kiram and these hacktivists think that DDoS is a reasonable form of civil disturbance online.

There are many more things that need to be thought of. There should be a wide debate on the issue. There should be a demystifying of the issues. How can governments who don’t live and breathe the internet attempt to write legislation for it?

Understanding the Internet
In 1996 a Time Magazine article came out. Philip Elmer-Dewitt wrote about the First Nation of Cyberspace and in it he said, “The Internet imposes no restrictions. Anybody can start a discussion on any topic and say anything. There have been sporadic attempts by local network managers to crack down on the raunchier discussion groups, but as Internet pioneer John Gilmore puts it, “The Net interprets censorship as damage and routes around it.”"

Journalist Ellyne Phneah points out, “Governments need to know what problems the cybersecurity legislation is meant to address, or they will face public backlash over the possible intrusions to their personal rights.”

Therein likes the crux of the issue.

Why Social Media didn’t deliver the Votes

Cocoy — Fri, 17 May 2013 02:45:58 +0000

The dust is settling on the 2013 race. We can now start looking at the postmortem of the race. One of the key questions going into the campaign was how social media would help spell victory or defeat for a candidate in an election. The quick answer of course to this question: it didn’t make a difference. This of course is misleading in so many different levels.

Let’s look back to 2010. One of the key lesson of the campaign was how Social entered as a new avenue that a candidate can communicate with his or her constituency. Social Media buzz was a battlefield, but not a key battle ground. Another key lesson of 2010 was startling. That no matter how loud the online voices were, it paled in comparison to television. Correlated with the network readiness of the Philippines, this tells us that society isn’t as digitally connected as we like to think it is.

Fast forward to 2013 we saw how the campaigns used social media to project their messages in a positive light, and how negative campaigns have found their way into social media, but failed to translate into negative effect for their candidates.

You have the case study of Nancy Binay. The Binay campaign was old school. Heavily on the ground. Bouncing from province to province and carried over by the good name of Vice President Jejomar Binay. Nancy Binay didn’t participate in any of the debates. It tells us that the television debates had very little effect too on the electorate. They did not punish Binay for her zero appearance in any debate. They did not punish Binay for the lack of clear policy, and clear messaging.

Let’s compare Nancy Binay’s social network standing with the front-runner, Grace Poe. Poe according to ABS-CBN had 52,451 Facebook followers, and over 6,328 Twitter followers. Nancy Binay accounts for 4,818 Facebook followers, and 6,239. Based on a pure, follower ratio, for the candidates represent a drop in the bucket to the supposedly 25 million or so Facebook users in the Philippines. In fact, President Aquino had over a million followers for his 2010 campaign. I caution the reader: this is a shallow way of looking at these numbers. It is simply instructive to understand where the numbers stand.

What’s interesting is the share of the voice between the two candidates. It is startling. Binay has 78% versus Poe’s 21%. Translation: Binay was more talked about in Social Media than Poe. This obviously didn’t translate much to anything other than talk. Poe wins the top spot. Binay wins. The lack of negativity in the Binay numbers is more attributed to the nascent natural language processing software which social media listening tools use. The technology is still in its infancy so clarity is hard to scope.

Let us look at the Aquino versus Gordon Campaigns. The former is a sure win into the Magic 12. The latter is hanging by a thread as of this writing. The former has 144,391 Facebook followers, and 16,179 twitter follows. Gordon has 186,060 Facebook followers, 7,101 twitter followers. Aquino has the higher share of the voice at 80% versus Gordon’s 20%. Again for all the vaunted rabidity of Gordon’s following, they weren’t that loud especially considering that Gordon won a lot in Regions 3, NCR, and 4A— largely urbanized areas were connectivity is a bit accessible than in most places.

What’s interesting to note here is how Aquino ran a well-rounded campaign. He worked on the ground, and he worked online and offline to deliver the message. In fact, in a versus campaign between Poe, Aquino had a higher share of the voice: 71% versus Poe’s 28%.

Let’s compare Aquino versus Casino. The latter’s campaign initially relied much on Social media. In fact, their following was supposedly large, and loud. In raw numbers: Bam had a larger following than Teddy. Bam had 144,392 FaceBook, 16,179 Twitter; while Teddy had 21,532 Facebookers and 15,836 twitters. The share of the voice had Bam’s 79% versus 21%.

The numbers prove that social was a mere blip on the radar. The audience wasn’t simply there. Was it deliberate that people didn’t want to go on social media to find out about their candidates? Was it because of the lack of connectivity? Lack of access? Is this also indicative of the lack of passion or interest people have with the various personalities?

The lack of influence a debate has on the election also seem to be a reflection on people’s interest. Nancy Binay who didn’t go on a debate and was subjected to a lot of negative campaigning online didn’t fizzle out. Neither of these intellectual escapades paid off for the campaigns. At least, not something to carry them over the top. They were, put in another way: battlegrounds, but not key enough to win the war.

What seems to be the winning formula is the Grace Poe style. Grace Poe’s success is indicative of these things: she campaigned really hard on the ground; her messaging was perfect— exactly what people wanted to hear: “jobs,” “I will help you,” and “integrity” vis-a-vis her father’s well-respected standing.

Another winning formula seems to be the Aquino campaign of well-rounded messaging. Well-rounded in the sense that they played on all the markets: online, ground, debates, and fought really hard.

We can also gleam from this information the lack of connectivity played a key role while people don’t turn to social media for the election. If you follow ABS-CBN’s data, the search traffic alone hardly blipped.

What can we gleam from this?

The answer is obvious. It can finally put to rest that social media is a magic bullet that can cure all ills. The 2013 campaign was waged and won by running a good campaign. By good campaign, meaning sorties, and the right messaging. And social media is just a component in a campaign’s ever growing toolkit. Social media is part of the whole campaign, not distinct, not separate but organically part of it from day one. Depending on the candidate, and depending on the audience that you want to reach, it may or may not be a battle ground that you wish to engage in.

What’s sad really is that at the end of the day, what really carried these people to victory is the power of each of their distinct brands, and what they represent. As I wrote in a previous piece, where I mentioned that none of the key issues mattered in 2013: Reproductive Health Law, Freedom of Information Act, Cybercrime Law, the Sin Tax, none. How then do we make issues matter?

Other than brands, and the importance of “how can this candidate benefit me”, mentality, it also represents the changing of the old guard into the younger generation: Poe, Angara, Binay, Pimentel, Aquino, the Estrada brand, are strong and the electorate continues to bring them to victory. It also seems to put an end to aging politicians. Legarda, dipped. Honasan is on the ropes. Gordon, Magsaysay, Madrigal, Maceda— all former Senators didn’t make it. Magsaysay, with the added complication of having Mitos on the ballot probably lost a substantial number of voters because of her.

Poe’s victory is a reminder that people want integrity reminiscent of the Aquino brand, but with a more populist bent. It is in spite of the brand name mentality, a good sign moving forward to 2016. Integrity and Honesty may still play a key role in 2016.

That said, what are the important questions to ask each of these campaigns? For me it would be these: how did your campaign use the Internet to communicate with your team, and to coordinate volunteers? Did you try to get followers and likers to campaign for you on the ground? How successful do you think it was? Did you use data to scientifically determine which area you should be focusing on?

The holy grail of using the Internet to win a Philippine political campaign continues to be elusive. There’s a winning formula out there. What’s clear, so long as connectivity is in such a short supply, Social buzz will play a minor role. Social is a battle ground. It may not yet carry a candidate over the top, but the Internet is very good also in other terms other than buzz, if the campaigns haven’t realized it yet. What’s also clear is this: the field is ripe for disruption. We may see it in 2016.

Images: screenshot of ABS-CBN’s halalan 2013 social media listening

Post-election round-up

Manuel Buencamino — Tue, 14 May 2013 23:15:58 +0000

I am sad that Jun Magsaysay and Risa Hontiveros didn’t make it to the Magic 12 but I will be laughing through my tears when Migz Zubiri and Dick Gordon accuse Gringo Honasan of cheating them of their rightful place in the Senate.

I am sad JV Ejercito made it but at the same time I’m happy he is at the tail-end. His brother Jinggoy is sad. Period. On a happier note, I can’t wait for the two Ejercitos to take opposing sides on an issue. JV and Jinggoy trying to show up each other, whoopie! Will JV call Jinggoy Honarable Kuya or will he address him in the manner he deserves?

I think Risa Homtiveros made the fatal mistake of pegging her campaign on Nancy Binay. She should have focused on the other UNA candidates where her record on human rights, anti-corruption, and public service would have stood in stark contrast. But she didn’t. So the only imprint her attack on Nancy Binay left was that of a mestiza picking on a housemaid. I would suggest that she shoot her campaign strategist but hacking the idiot to pieces would be more satisfying.

Grace Poe bested three of the best disguised trapos in the business. I always thought Grace would be in the top six but becoming number one never crossed my mind. I love it. She was the most underestimated candidate, thought to lack brains and experience and knocked for riding on her father’s name and fame but she proved her mettle during debates and more than held up in penetrating one on one interviews. She showed that she is intelligent at the same time sensitive and her moral compass points true North. Give her a little time to settle in and she will become a gem in the Senate.

The election of Cayetano, Binay, Angara, Pimentel, Ejercito indicates that dynasty is a non-issue as far as voters are concerned. I hope the anti-dynasty crowd accepts the will of the voters instead of doubling their efforts to frustrate the will of the voters by lobbying for a law prohibiting people who happen to share the same bloodline from becoming public servants. Besides Leni Robredo won against a Villafuerte and Aga Muhlach looks like he will beat a Fuentebella. So anti-dynasts please show a little more faith in the wisdom of the common man.

The good showing of Team Patay proves that Team Buhay is dead. There is no Catholic vote if by Catholic vote you mean robots operated by bishops. There is no Iglesia ni Kristo vote either. But that proposition will be difficult to prove because the INC leadership does not announce its endorsement until the last poll of Pulse Asia and Social Weather Station is published. At any rate, the divergent approaches show the difference between the Catholic bishops and the INC bishops. The former do not pay attention to surveys. And that’s ironic because surveys tune in on the voice of the people which is supposedly the voice of God. Then again if those bishops listened to the voice of God to begin with, they will not meddle in secular politics.

The biggest losers are Enrile, Estrada, and Binay. UNA came in last. That shows they have no endorsement power if the candidate does not carry their surname and in the case of Enrile, he couldn’t even carry his own son. The good news is we are all winners. If I have to explain to you why we are all winners, then you are among the losers who believed that there was more to UNA than Enrile, Estrada, and Binay. ‘Yun lang.