opinion


PROMETHEUS BOUND


A 4


The Manila Times


THURSDAY


D e cember 9, 2010 Edit orial


Manny Pacquiao supports Save Act


HE accomplishments of Manny “PacMan” Pacquiao in boxing may be legendary, but his greatness is still unfolding outside the ring. We applaud his sense of nationalism in helping the government lobby for passage of a bill in the US Congress that promises to revive the mori- bund Philippine garments industry. If the bill passes, exports of local textiles and apparels to the US could again reach $3 billion, creating some 600,000 jobs in the Philippines. And according to a website about the bill, it is expected to attract $480-million worth of foreign investments for factories within the first two years of the measure’s implementation. The “Save Our Industry Act,” or simply “Save Act,” proposes to provide duty-free entry of Philippine-made textiles and apparel into the US if those goods are made of American raw materials. The tariff will be reduced to 50 percent if the Philippine garments used materials from sources other than the United States. US Senate Bill 3170 was introduced earlier in March and has been referred to a committee, and there were reportedly more than one version of the measure making their way through the American legislature.


T Philippine officials were reportedly hopeful that the Save


Act would be approved by the lame-duck US Congress—that is, before those elected in the November elections assume office early next year. But according to a US website, S-3170 is only in the first step of the legislative process. To be sure, getting the bill through the US Congress is always a tough fight. But it helps that a Republican, Sen. Christopher Bond of Missouri, is the sponsor of S-3170, and among the three co-sponsors is a long-time Filipino friend, Democratic Sen. Daniel Inouye of Hawaii. Passing laws is never easy, which is why The Manila Times is pleased to hear that Rep. Pacquaio of Sarangani will appear in a new infomercial pushing for passage of the Save Act. The video is expected to go viral, complementing a host of initiatives to lobby for the bill, including campaigns on social networking sites, like Facebook and Twitter, and elsewhere in the Internet calling on Americans to write their respective congressmen and senators in Washington, D.C., asking for support. Also, Rep. Pacquiao is endorsing the Save Act for free, according to the Board of Investments (BOI). The world of boxing already knows of the greatness of this Filipino, who came from humble origins to win eight championship belts in as many weight divisions. But it seems that we are just beginning to appreciate his big heart. If it’s not asking too much, perhaps the “PacMan” can be convinced to also fly to Washington to make a case in person for the Save Act. We hear that he is planning a family trip abroad anyway, most likely to visit Tokyo Disneyland with his children. We suggest that Orlando will be equally enjoyable. We also hope that his magnanimity will inspire other Filipinos to do their part to help support the Save Act. Ordinary people can help spread the Pacquiao video when it is launched on Facebook, maybe even encourage their relatives who have taken up US citizenship to write their congressmen and senators. And if Rep. Pacquiao can support the Save Act solely for love of country, there is no reason for any Filipino not to do the same.


Lessons from Pacquiao By endorsing the Save Act, the “PacMan” shows how per- sonal fame can be tapped for the greater good. Actually, he offers Filipinos many valuable lessons. For instance, his life is nothing less than the Filipino Dream itself. His rise from poverty to become one of the wealthiest athletes in the world—not to mention one of the most influential personalities—is hugely inspirational. That he strived to improve himself, even after accomplish- ing so much in boxing, will hopefully encourage genera- tions of Filipinos to also value education and to strive to be the best. Also, we have much to learn about his character. When


“PacMan” was running for a seat in Congress in the last elections, a boxing analyst pointed out that he always trains very hard for fights, and if he can bring that work ethic to the House of Representatives, he just might turn out to be a good congressman. Rep. Pacquiao seems to be doing just that. Certainly, Rep. Pacquiao is not perfect. He is, after all, just human like all of us, prone to make mistakes and bad deci- sions. History gives us many examples of how fame and fortune ruin good men, but that does not seem to be the case with the “PacMan.” And we remain hopeful about his future. For now, we look forward to watching his infomercial calling on the US Congress to approve the Save Act. We also hope to see Rep. Pacquiao in other arenas where he can use his popularity to help this country realize its collective dreams of greatness—perhaps in helping revive the stalled peace process with the communist rebels and secessionists in the South. Whatever other advocacies claim his heart and attention in the future, championing the Save Act is a good first move, because that addresses poverty, the root of many problems in our country.


THURSDAY December 9, 2010 The Manila Times DANTE F. M. ANG 2ND, Executive Editor


FRED DE LA ROSA, Chairman Editorial Board RENE Q. BAS, Editor in Chief ROMY P. MARIÑAS, News Editor


ARNOLD S. TENORIO, Business Editor CONRAD M. CARIÑO, National Editor


TESSA MAURICIO-ARRIOLA, Lifestyle Editor ARIS L. SOLIS, Regions Editor


PERRY GIL MALLARI, Acting Sports Editor BRIAN M. AFUANG, Art Director RENE H. DILAN, Photo Editor


 DANTE F. M. ANG 2ND, President and CEO


Telephone All Departments. 524-5665 to 67 Telefax 528-1729; Subscription: 524-5664 Local 222 URL http://www.manilatimes.net • e-mail newsboy1@manilatimes.net Letters to the editor


THE MANILA TIMES is published daily at 2/F Dante Ang and Associates Building, 409 A. Soriano Avenue, Intramuros, Manila 1002


VOLUME 112 NUMBER 059


OPINION Popularity not mirror of governance BY DR. DANTE A. ANG


THE 79 percent popularity rating of President Benigno Aquino 3rd is one for the books. It is unprec- edented. Despite the miscues and missteps by some of the President’s men and the incessant attacks by the opposition on his perceived shortcomings, the people’s trust in him remains unshaken. His detractors, however, are not so impressed. They say that his 79 percent trust rating was not surpris- ing given that his administration is only a little over 100 days old. That may be so, but to better appreciate his high ratings, one has to put the issue in its proper context. P-Noy did not enjoy the tradi- tional honeymoon period. He had barely set foot in Malacañang when negative stories began to appear in media. Several Executive Orders be- came the subject of unpleasant media reports. Fact is, they are still very much in the news. Just yester- day, the Supreme Court struck down the EO creating the Truth Commission as unconstitutional. The biggest problem President


Aquino has had to face so far was the Luneta hostage crisis where eight tourists from Hong Kong were shot and killed by the lone hostage taker who subsequently was gunned down by the Police. As if that was not enough, the ensuing pronouncements from the President’s subalterns failed to assure the people that every- thing was under control. On the contrary, they added oil to the already flaming controversy. Instead of soothing the feelings of the victims’ families, the Palace boys succeeded in further alienat- ing them. The administration was severely criticized both domesti- cally and internationally for the handling of the hostage crisis. If you consider the political ty- phoons that buffeted the adminis- tration of P-Noy early on, you can-


not help but appreciate his 79 per- cent trust ratings. It can only mean that the President’s well of good- will is so rich that the spring that gushes out of it is so powerful as to drown out the boo-boos by his own men, as well as the criticism his detractors throw at him for every conceivable mistake. Can the President sustain his high trust and popularity ratings? There’s a pretty good chance that P-Noy would continue to keep the people’s confidence. They re- gard him as sincere and honest. Add to that the respect and ad- miration of the masses for his saintly mother, former President Cory Aquino. In sum, you have a President whose moral founda- tion is solid as rock and it would take quite an effort to weaken and erode his standing. But before P-Noy’s men start uncorking the champagne, they might want to take a pause and ask themselves if the President’s trust ratings are truly reflective of the people’s level of satisfaction over the fulfillment of the President’s campaign promise of a “Matuwid na Daan” (Straight Path), among other commitments?


I am afraid that the President’s men are missing the point. They are confusing ratings with governance. They couldn’t be more wrong when they say that the President’s 79 per- cent popularity ratings is a gauge of the people’s satisfaction with the performance of the President and his Cabinet. That is patently wrong. His ratings could remain stratospheric yet his performance could be weak. That is the cold reality. So, please focus on the things that really matter. Employ- ment is one; education is another. Healthcare is fundamental. And a host of other social concerns. His spokesman went on to say that since the people are satisfied with the Cabinet members, there was no need to reorganize the


President’s official family. Before this high rating game gets into the head of some Palace functionar- ies and blurs their vision, they might want to consider that, at the end of the day, the President will be judged on how well he has delivered on his campaign prom- ises and by how much he has uplifted the quality of life of the Filipino, among other pledges. I can understand why the Presi- dent picks his men from a close and restricted circle. After all, he has to work with people he trusts and he is comfortable with. I give him that. The other side of the coin, however, is the need for his Cabi- net members to exercise diligence, maturity and responsibility, espe- cially in making recommendations to the commander in chief. Six months into office, the Policy of Exclusion is alive and well. I still hear some of the people around him expressing disbelief, if not dis- gust, everytime people associated with former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo are floated or considered as candidates for some position in the new government. Some former public servant who were lucky enough to get a consul- tancy or a similar position in the P-Noy administration become the subject of ridicule. “Bata ni Gloria yan, bakit mo kinuha yan?” is among the common refrain.


Before I get misunderstood, I


want to clear the air. I have no intention of joining the govern- ment. My five-year stint with gov- ernment as Chair of the Commis- sion on Filipinos Overseas (CFO) with Cabinet rank was more than enough. OK, I am in a way back with government. I took a con- sultancy contract with the Phil- ippine Charity Sweepstakes Of- fice (PCSO). I write speeches and provide advice to the board on matters of communications and public education. Besides, my arrangement with


the PCSO is only on call basis. I don’t hold regular office hours. I enjoy doing the work that I do. Additionally, I am able to help a lot of indigent patients whose medical and financial needs I help facilitate. More importantly, the PCSO board, led by its Chair, Margie P. Juico and General Man- ager, Jose Ferdinand M. Roxas 2nd, are highly competent and profes- sional leaders. It is a challenge and privilege to work for them in mak- ing the PCSO a catalyst for change by making the life of the Filipino better, healthier, happier. If you want to work in govern- ment and survive it, you must ob- serve a few rules; namely: take a vow of poverty, resolve to lead a clean life, and lead by example. Otherwise, you will be engulfed by the forces of corruption and, be- fore you know it, you become part of the very system that you abhor. President Noynoy’s example of moral leadership should inspire the weak and the submissive to enter the straight and narrow gate. I am reminded of President Theodore Roosevelt who once said, “So far as this movement of agitation throughout the country takes the form of a fierce discon- tent with evil, of a determination to punish the authors of evil, whether in industry or politics, the feeling is to be heartily wel- comed as a sign of healthy life. “If, on the other hand, it turns into a mere crusade of appetite against appetite, of a contest be- tween the brutal greed of the have nots and the brutal greed of the haves, then it has no significance for good, but only for evil. If it seeks to establish a line of cleavage, not along the line which divides good men from bad, but along that other line . . . which divides those who are well off from those who are less well off, then it will be fraught with immeasurable harm to the body politic.”


Fact-finding mission for Leonard Co (1) L


EONARDO CO, renowned Filipino conservationist and botanist, along with forester Sofronio Cortez and farmer Julius Borromeo, was killed on Novem- ber 15, 2010, allegedly by troops of the Philippine Army, while con- ducting research on tree bio- diversity in the Manawan-Kananga Watershed in Leyte. On the day of his death, Co and four of his com- panions were pursuing research work for the Energy Development Corporation: surveying and collect- ing specimen seedlings of endan- gered trees for replanting. The Army unit involved in the incident, the 19th Infantry Battal- ion, reported that Co was killed in a crossfire with the New Peo- ple’s Army. However, accounts from the survivors said that there was no firefight that happened. The Samahan ng Nagtataguyod ng Agham at Teknolohiya para sa Sambayanan (AGHAM—Advo- cates of Science and Technology for the People), in coordination with friends and families of the victims, organized a fact finding mission to pursue the truth be- hind the circumstances of the kill- ing of the three men. The Fact Finding Mission on the Killings of Leonard Co, Sofrono Cortez and Julius Borromeo in Kananga, Leyte (FFM) had the following ob- jectives: to establish facts and gather relevant information on the November 15, 2010 incident in Kananga, Leyte; to gather testimo- nies and observations from the


GIOVANNI TAPANG, Ph.D.


people involved in the incident and to identify possible parties and individuals responsible for the incident. The following are excerpts from the findings of the fact finding mission.


The main tools of the FFM were the photo and video documenta- tion taken and recorded during the site visit and key informant in- terviews. The FFM paid a courtesy call to the Mayor of Kananga town and conducted meetings with the Philippine National Police, the 19th IB, the Energy Development Corporation (EDC) staff and the families and neighbors of the sur- vivors and victims. Other docu- ments obtained during and after the FFM was also used to com- plete the report. The FFM was divided into three groups. Team 1 interviewed the EDC personnel and prima- rily conducted the ocular visit of the site to gather more informa- tion, establish facts and gather possible evidence. Team 1 marked the locations with GPS units for proper geotagging. Team 2 made the courtesy call to the mayor and visited the communities


where the families of the victims and survivors were. They also vis- ited the family of Cortez in Baybay, Leyte. Team 3 visited the local PNP and was able to talk to Chief of Police Sr. Insp. Camacho and informed them of the plans to visit the site. They also visited the 19th IB head- quarters and met with Lt. Col. Federico Tutaan at the gate. The team observed the fol-


lowing from its interviews and incident site visit: The direction of bullet marks on the trees originated from a vantage point on the ridge above Leonard Co and his team. These bullet marks indicated that the direc- tion of fire was bearing down- wards towards Co’s team. The tree (Tree No. 4) that Co’s


team was studying was hit three times. A larger tree where one of the survivors hid had six bul- let marks on it. The FFM team did not observe any bullet marks on the trees from the ground looking up to the ridge nor from any other side except from the vantage position. The only consistent explana- tion for these key observations would be that the military was positioned on top of the ridge and firing towards Co and com- pany. There was no indication of any crossfire. The failure of the military unit involved to provide immediate medical attention and hospital treatment to Julius Borromeo prolonged his agony


and ultimately led to his death. The military waited at least one hour after they approached the position of Co’s team before bringing down the bodies and the survivor Gibe despite his repeated requests, as well as those of the then-alive Borromeo.


Supposing that the military indeed had intelligence informa- tion that there were NPA sigh- tings on November 12 and that this was communicated to the EDC, what were the precautions taken to inform LC and his team who were already in the LGPF complex since November 9? Like- wise, was the military informed of the team’s activities prior to the day of the incident?


These questions and others are still unanswered. Justice for Leonard and his companions remains elusive. The military should give a full accounting of what happened during that day and the names of the squad or platoon members that were in- volved in the shooting. The EDC should make public its records and protocols with re- gard to its security relationship with the military. Tomorrow is International Human Rights Day. The deaths of Leonard Co and his companions are a reminder that we still have a long way to go with regard to attaining the free exercise of our rights in the country.


Prom.bound@gmail.com


Page 1  |  Page 2  |  Page 3  |  Page 4  |  Page 5  |  Page 6  |  Page 7  |  Page 8  |  Page 9  |  Page 10  |  Page 11  |  Page 12  |  Page 13  |  Page 14