A sincere thanks, from the people of the Philippines

In light of the recent events in the Philippines, I would like to extend the warmest thanks, on behalf of the Filipino people, to the international community for the quick responses. These initiatives you made to reach out to the Philippines warmed the hearts of those in need in the affected regions. Thank you for sending aid to the people in the Visayan region despite your non-affiliation towards us. It may be that some are obligated and some are not, but thank you nonetheless. Your aid will never be forgotten, I promise you that.

I would also like to thank the local international non-government organizations for their initiatives. Lastly, I would like to thank the other private institutions and other local governments for their efforts.

To the foreign aid governments, thank you for filling in the void that our national government seems incapable to do at this time. The amount of relief goods you sent in no doubt will reduce the state of anarchy in these areas. Also, thank you for reducing the task load of the national government in what they needed to provide for in such a state of calamity. At least now they could focus on reconstructing, restoring, and rehabilitating these cities.

To the non-government organizations, other local governments, and institutions, thank you for you relief efforts. Thank you for taking the initiative to help the victims make it through this tough period in their lives.

Now that you have taken care of this angle of the problem resolution, I have to wonder what our national government is doing to rehabilitate the areas destroyed not just by the typhoon, but also by the preceding earthquake. I guess now it is their turn. If only they will respond just as quick.

This is not the kind of Christmas that many of us here wished and hoped to have. But despite our losses, you gave us a glimpse of hope that we can move forward still. 

Thank you and may you have a blessed holiday ahead of you.

Greatfully yours,

Czarina

Medieval Governance

I would like to make a sarcastic note first:
"Want to take a trip back in time and see the middle ages? Oh wait, we're here already."

We are currently caught in the middle of the "pork barrel scandal". For this entry, I would like to recognize my esteemed professor in administrative law for giving our class this assignment because it just made me realize how much immature, or premature our government really is-- even with our glorified president in power right now.

As I write here, the newspapers are scattered with clippings and opinions on these funds. The news currently states that our government plans on abolishing these funds in the next budget allocation and adds that due to the findings of misuse and misappropriation of the funds by legislators, the budget is set to be re-allocated to the branch of government that should be the one to hold the funds for projects. The executive branch being at the forefront of this seems to be appropriate. I would also agree with the budget reform plans that they should be the branch given the funds since they are the ones

Coming fresh from reading medieval history, the excruciating image of the reign of monarchs is still in my head. Because of  this, I realized that there really is not much of a difference in the way they ruled and the way the state of our government is right now. I remember writing a few years ago in my political science essay that our government is still young and underdeveloped despite being in the advent of the age of technological advancements. It is sad to think, but I still hold that opinion today. The horrible part is probably that the whole scheme of it is familiar to that period of state governance when king-militants were necessary. I guess this shows just how much we have progressed in the area of state governance. Or has it?

But what I think is worse of it is that I held out hope for impending development. But to give the President the benefit of the doubt, I do believe and think that he is doing a better job than any of the past administrations-- other than Magsaysay of course.

What is it then with the medieval ages that I found is so familiar still in today's government? The discretion. Back then, the king held all the power subject to what he deemed would be a favorable decision to God's will. He gave grants and gifts to his kinsmen as a form of political alliance. This was to show that the power and resources were being distributed evenly so that they would reach the people, the ultimate beneficiaries of it all. He decides then who gets the royal titles, and the lands and riches that go along with them and who gets the favors from the royal treasury. Evidently, it is up to his good graces. The decision as to who gets what is decided by a single factor, political alliance. As a result, members of the royalty tried their best to be on the king and queen's favor in hopes of being given those titles.

Today those good graces and discretionary powers of the king are apparently still around. History would show us that several treaties and international conventions were signed to strip monarchs of such powers. Thus the formation of other forms of government. The laws were revised and the separation of powers were encoded in what several states today call the constitution. In our country's current state, I slowly realized how much the separation of powers imbibed in the constitution serves only as a reminder, but that it takes no particular effect to the actual exercise of these powers. 

Dani

November 7, 2013- 10:42PM

Take everything with a grain of salt

I've Got this in the Bag!

That was just one of the few phrases that lingered in my head as I pretended to be one of the top contending candidates for this year's senatorial and local elections. Yes, dear citizens, it is that time of year again, and it is that time when we must all go about our duties as citizens and elect some people into office again. Sam old same old.

But then again, maybe it's not the same. I realized checking out these candidate's commercials that something  has changed. It hasn't gone on a complete 180 spin, but perhaps a 30 degree spin for the better? I'd add a smile to that because it means the race is getting tougher to win. And by that, I mean the following factors have changed substantially in terms of national poll results and advertising strategies:

1. Less candidates seem to make campaigns revolving on being seen with the poor
2. Less poor people shown in commercials
3. Less celebrity endorsers
4. More talking in advertisements
5. More speeches on what their platforms are, though they do not really elaborate on any plan
6. Still the same promise of eradicating poverty, but still no clear plan of action
7. More interaction with people of the working class-- which I think is to simulate the idea that they are going to make more policies on quality job opportunities.
8. More smiling in campaigns
9. More political endorsers-- it's an evolution from the less celebrity endorsers. I think this was meant to raise their credibility status in the public eye. I just don't know by how much
10. More serious smiles in photographs rather than "cute-pleasantry" smiles.
11. More posters and fliers illegally posted everywhere.-- Which I think they should be penalized for.
12. More campaign caravans with irritating jingles.
13. More sympathetic commercials regarding their outlook over the Filipino poor
14. More ballot numbers in posters


So, for the most part this list comprises of observations mainly on the main factors purportedly affecting voters' choice. Back in college my friend and I wrote our senior research paper on the same subject, only it was to compare the national and barangay elections in 2010. I'd be doing the same here only it would be shorter and would mainly be about the national elections only.

In its most recent survey, Pulse Asia released results on the top contenders for seats in the Senate. Not surprisingly, most of them are incumbents, and at the top of the ranks are those who were personally endorsed by the President himself in TV commercials.A short note I have about this move is a simple question. This question is directed to the President: "Why would you make such a political move?" On the plausible honest side I would like to give the benefit of the doubt that he truly believes in the capabilities and moral of these people. On the odd side that this is merely a political campaign to boost his party's name, I think it is a very cautious move. Then again, he is the President, and I doubt he would make such a move that he knew would hurt his reputation. I just think that on the blind side it is giving off the notion that he favors this set of candidates to win so that he would fully support their proposals.It comes of as a prejudiced move in short.

As to incumbents being at the top ranks, I would have to commend them on that because it means that campaign wise, they are very good-- or very creative. Still, what this only means for the veracity of campaign ads in pre-election periods is that they are still a very powerful force even with the learned. It is quite bothersome, but at the same time, commendable. Bothersome because it only shows how much better political analysts and campaign managers have gotten much better at merging recent favors of the electorate and purporting that to be the spitting image of the candidate's plan. Commendable because it means the Filipino voter is getting more complex and prudent when it comes to voting for a candidate. 

This is evidenced by the attempted data input in the campaigns. An example would be illustrating or indicating their platforms. Though still general, the attempt is shown. The mere phrasing of "I will eradicate poverty and create more viable jobs" is no longer good enough to sway the average voter. I guess this is the product of years of experience under non-productivity from incumbents. I am surprised though at the slow pace of realization. But the electorate cannot be blamed. After all, it was only under the recent regime change that honest information freely circulated.

For the most part though, I guess you could say an increased quality in voter scrutiny and campaign complexity is at hand. They are not completely at the stage of "let us see what his platform is" because as you can see, most of the incumbents are still at the top ranks. How do I know then that voters have become more prudent? From the campaign materials being flashed on screen and in the radio. If you could listen to one, the prominent features from the fifteen I mentioned are the mention of plans, less celebrities, and more political endorsers. Not much progress though on the manifestation theory on physical presence because campaign posters have evolved to show the ballot number of the candidate.

Just a note to the candidates then, do not be mad, or start filing suits against COMELEC if your ballot number is suddenly changed. it was you who decided to endorse yourself using your ballot number and nobody else. However I would have to say that that is highly unethical.

Back to the campaign results then. As mentioned, the voter scrutiny has changed. Why then? More than the fact of more information circulating, it is the fact that members of the electorate are tired of mere unfulfilled promises. This is why-- to the candidates who have nothing but songs and smiles in their campaigns-- it is likely that voters would choose to vote for those whom they actually hear concrete plans from. Though they may not be well-planned out, these plans would be worth their vote.

It is now only six more days before the election. I would love to tell you who to vote, and who not to vote, but I will not. Yes, I will not do such out of my conscious effort to help you exercise your right. It is your right, not mine, nor anybody else's. So choose wisely my dear citizens...




With faithful scrutiny,


Czarina

Here's to Hoping

To the Senate President, 

Shame on you! Shame on you  for even merely entertaining the idea of distributing those funds to your senator friends. Shame on you for tainting the honorable office that you hold. Mostly, shame on you for demeaning yourself. I was beginning to look up to you after your incredible speech during the impeachment trial. Now, those expectations just dropped a hundred degrees below zero. I am sorry that I might cause you some hurt if you ever get to see this. I am sorry that you are old enough to not change. And I am sorry that your better judgement might have gotten lost somewhere in the books and papers you have piled up. Maybe it's somewhere in your gloomy office at PECABAR *yes I've been there a few years ago on a career trip*. Mostly though, I am sorry that I think this way of you and you probably don't even deserve it. But what would I know, I'm still learning.

Forgive me for this ungraceful note, but I think it is just for you to hear such a criticism especially at this time when expectations have run higher and higher than they ever have. I thank the President for that. I was hoping to see the same illustrious performance from the senate, but then again, the people there still do not seem to know what being a senator truly means. Again, I apologize for tarnishing your reputation even more, but this is not my intention.

Prudence and honor are merely some of the compositions that I look for in a statesman. Sadly that does not seem to be present in many of our legislators. I do not hope to offend any more than I might already have. But you know how the Tagalog saying goes, "bato bato sa langit, tamaaan huwag magalit." I believe that our ancestors came up with that idiom for a good reason. However, as to you sir, I expect no hurt because I want to believe that a Senate President does not have anything to be embarrassed or ashamed of. I still want to believe that. And I am hoping that I will soon learn to. I am hoping that soon, I will come to have some form of faith in the legislature.

I am nothing but disappointed in what transpired in that session. The President's headlining comment made my day then. I seriously hope not to see anymore setbacks from this branch than it has accumulated. But to me, the lowest point of that confrontation was the mere fact that it had to happen at all.

First  of all, why doe the Office of the Senate President give out such funds to other members of the senate? For what use is it? I should think the answer is obvious but I refuse to state it out loud because I said, I wish to gain even a shred of faith in this branch. And it is proving to be more difficult than I had hoped. Those funds were initially meant for what? I was under the impression that members of senate had a pork barrel as well because it was to "aid in executing projects as approved in legislature". Though what these projects are I have no idea. Perhaps I should care to ask the common passerby. Or perhaps the little man crossing the street carrying a rice sack filled with assorted items to his home on the corner of the side walk next to the decrepit street light. Or I could be wrong. Perhaps those funds were meant for the internal operations and daily functions of your office? Please do educate me on this matter.

Either way, I need a very basic answer to a very basic question. What were those funds of the office for? Why were they distributed to members of the senate? And, perhaps most important for this sparked all the controversy, why were the amounts distributed uneven as to the four members? You might not see this, but I am hoping for an honest and honorable answer good sir.

Second of all, why did you retaliate during the interrogation? Being the intelligent man that you are and the knowledgeable lawyer I know you to be, why on earth would you answer that way?

In criminal law, it is common knowledge that flight is an evidence of guilt. To this end sir, that manner of speech you did shows a retaliation that tries to escape from a problem. I am not sure if this lackluster defense of yours is due to your age, but nonetheless, your honor should have spoken true for you. And with that I pity you. I pity you for despite the riches you have gained, which I know you will also try to disguise, the end of your graceful career  as a statesman will always be tarnished with your ungracious evasion of that question.

I am sorry Mr. President. I am sorry your peers at the senate hoped to remove you from your position. I am sorry nothing is going well for you now. But when you get to see this, and I am hoping that you do, I hope you come to realize that at the end of all this, nothing is more worth than living for the betterment of all. Nothing, sir. Nothing.


Hoping for more enlightened days,


Czarina

True Colors are Shining Through

Forgive me for the very cynical attitude that I usually put in my entries. But could you blame me for doing so when I live in a country where politicians center their arguments during sessions in congress on personal debts? If you have not heard of the news, then by all means, feel free to search around for articles on the recent confrontation between two Philippine senators during session. Particularly ones that pertain to their arguments on personal debts, when the session was meant to have been for discussing the unnecessary expenses from the Office of the Senate President.

I might have said too much already. But just to give you a brief background, here's the gist. The Senate President was being accused of distributing the exclusive funds of his office to other members of the senate. Based on their arguments, it appears this is a usual practice of the office. The distribution-- its occurrence, and the amounts released--, it would seem, is based purely on the Senate President's discretion. However, on the recent distribution, a few members of senate revolted stating the funds they were given were outrageously less than those given to others. Because of this, they  confronted the Senate President and questioned his action of distributing his office's funds "unnecessarily".

Well, if I were these senators, I really would feel like I was ripped off and deprived of my right to those funds! I mean, a quarter of a million is a very long way from the two million the others got! 

As to the Senate President, shame on you! Shame on you  for even merely entertaining the idea of distributing those funds to your senator friends. Shame on you for tainting the honorable office that you hold. Mostly, shame on you for demeaning yourself. I was beginning to look up to you after your incredible speech during the impeachment trial. Now, those expectations just dropped a hundred degrees below zero. I am sorry that I might cause you some hurt if you ever get to see this. I am sorry that you are old. And I am sorry that your better judgement might have gotten lost somewhere in the books and papers you have piled up. Maybe it's somewhere in your gloomy office at PECABAR *yes I've been there a few years ago on a career trip*. Mostly though, I am sorry that I think this way of you and you probably don't even deserve it. But what would I know, I'm still learning. (the extensive part of this paragraph/ letter is posted in the next entry)

As to the four senators, and well, the other silent ones as well, I really hope you do know what a senator's career description is. At the very least that is my expectation of you. That is my expectation of you as the senators of today. My expectations of a senator in general are different. But I wouldn't bother posting them here because I know you wouldn't bother knowing either.

But kidding aside, I do think the manner the Senate President answered the inquiries thrown at him was very ungracious and lack-luster. I am very disappointed in him to say the least. I am very disappointed in all of them. But I guess my expectations should not have been raised too much. After all, the President of the Philippines cannot control their actions, nor their election. *ehem!*

Speaking of which, I do commend President Aquino for his take on this incident in senate. It seems he is very frustrated that he can do nothing  to alleviate the dirt from this branch of government. I share your sentiments Mr. President. I truly do. However, you, dear Filipino citizen reader, can.

The race for the senatorial  elections is in a few months. Oddly enough, I have only begun to see media advertisements of these candidates just a couple of weeks ago. I guess that show how effective the new election policy on advertisement banning is. Thank you to whoever pushed for finally implementing this and to the people who worked on it. Now I don't have to switch channels as much as I used to during campaign periods.

If you haven't seen their commercials yet, try watching out for them on your local channels AT YOUR OWN RISK!
I cannot provide a link to any video as none is available at this time

I appreciate the fact that they're trying to portray them selves as "simple approachable and goodwilled" people. However, I also appreciate the fact that I know advertisements are just that. They're advertisements. Meaning they convey the image that is expected of the viewer to like. Translation, what you see in TV is probably not true. Some of them perhaps convey a genuine image of the product, yes. But I forgot one thing. This is politics. What are the products in their advertisements? I honestly am not sure.

If you do watch their advertisements you will find a common trend. Used to be it was "helping the poor by doing charity work" or "giving to the poor their basic needs". What happened to the poor in those advertisements? I do not know. I'm guessing they're still poor given the fact that senate hasn't even come up with a good enough legislation these past few years to boost the economy.  That or those people were just really good actors, or the media just never sensationalized other works of legislation. Lately though the new theme of these commercials is "helping the Filipino get better jobs" and "enriching the Filipino living". Any difference? YES! It appeals more to the middle class and those who are in the lower brackets of society. Why the change? Because people finally realized all the falsities in the previous ones. This one seems more realistic does it not? YES! But that does not mean they will materialize. As I said, an advertisement is merely and advertisement.

I warned you in the beginning of this entry that I tend to be very cynical.

That aside though, I am not saying do not vote. That is a very irresponsible thing to do. I clearly remember one of my professors stating recently that "Voting should not be a right. It should be a responsibility, an duty, an obligation." I could not agree with him more. This might give you something to think about too, and I really hope it does. I remember my sister also telling me, "if you keep thinking every single one of them deserves no spot in office then nothing will happen, and no one will ever vote." On that note, I encourage you to choose very very carefully who to vote for.

So, the next time you see their faces and names plastered with wide smiles across your screen, try to do the following:
1. List down their names
2. Search for ANY, and I mean any, entries about them on the internet.
3. Read all those pertaining to them on official and unofficial publications
4. Build a credential list on them. Type this in if you want
5. Make a mental criticism on their capabilities to intelligently write and construe the law. Also, take note of those who are husbands, sons, daughters, siblings or wives of any existing politician.
6. Take note of these the next time you see any ads pertaining to them, or them in person.
7. Vote based on these notes. Please choose ones that care enough, and know the ways of the law.



With that, I leave you with a quote I cherish on politics from one of my favorite books:
"I ask you, what could the woman do, left by the death of her husband with five little children, and two families who though only of grasping the crown? I am surprised she didn't do worse."- Henry IV, Confessions of Catherine de Medici



Charmed,


Czarina