July 2007 Archives

I had already written my column for today when I got word----through an unfailingly efficient member of the Senate----that the Makati Regional Trial Court had thrown out Senator Antonio Trillanes' petition for limited, "functional" freedom. It was about five pm, yesterday (Monday). As it turned out, Judge Oscar Pimentel denied all of Trillanes' petitions.

In a sweeping denial of all of Trillanes’ pleas, Judge Oscar Pimentel Monday rejected Trillanes’ motions to be allowed to attend all official Senate functions, to be given access to media and to set up an extension office inside the Marine detention center at Fort Bonifacio in Taguig City. Pimentel upheld the prosecution claim that the Department of Justice, “as the prosecuting arm of the government, its shield and sword of law and order, represents not only the 11,138,067 voters who voted for him (Trillanes), but the people of the Philippines, with all its 85 million citizens and counting.”

In the column, I had argued that, despite the self-evident sincerity of Sen. Aquilino Pimentel (no relation, I think), Senate Resolution No. 22 (since renamed Resolution No. 3, after it was adopted on July 25) may be said to encroach on the judiciary's admittedly limited territory.

To be sure, the language of the resolution itself was based on a scrupulous regard for the prerogatives of the judiciary: a promise that Trillanes would be “present when needed by the court”; recognition that the “Regional Trial Court of Makati has primary jurisdiction over [his] person”; support for Trillanes’ petition for bail. And yet, the full effect of the resolution was to pit the entire Senate, itself naturally jealous of its own prerogatives, against a lone court. Instead of strengthening the fundamental principle of checks and balances, it may have undermined it.

Reading the story about Judge Pimentel's decision, however, made me realize I had missed one powerful argument against the resolution: That it would force the trial court to overcompensate, and reject Trillanes' main petition outright. That would then place the Senate in an embarrassing position, a wobbly perch it had chosen to climb onto. Judge Pimentel spoke of "undue pressure"----Trillanes, he said, was placing the court under undue pressure by egregiously citing the wrong precedents. But perhaps I won't be the only one to read this rather strained rationalization as an indirect thumbing-of-one's-nose at the Senate. This "lone court" may be subtly telling the "entire Senate:" Keep your distance. Some time ago, the Inquirer tried to put the entire issue of Trillanes' detention in some perspective. The editorial argued, among other things, for a limited freedom for Trillanes. Does my column conflict with this stand? It doesn't really matter if it does, but just the same I think that there is, in fact, no conflict. I agree that Trillanes should be allowed to attend Senate sessions and committee hearings while his trial continues; but I am also wary of the Senate placing "undue pressure" on the judiciary, precisely because it has an interest in the matter. Our courts are among the weakest links in the governance chain; we don't need the hammer of the Senate bearing down hard on them. Â

I cannot find it reported either in print or online, except for this mention at RedBlueThoughts, but I do recall watching TV footage of Jinggoy Estrada, the Senate President Pro Tempore, attacking President Arroyo's ceaseless name-dropping during her State of the Nation Address a day after the annual rite. "Parang si Lolit Solis," Estrada said, referring to the talent manager and TV host. Apparently, greeting a legion of people on the air is Solis's stock in trade. "Parang si Lolit Solis." As the insult the Estrada scion clearly intended it to be, this is rather lame, yes? It needs to be explained, even to members of the political class Estrada belongs to. It reveals rather more of Estrada than it does of Arroyo. And it doesn't sting. When Cory Aquino called Doy Laurel "langaw," after she had parted ways with her Vice President, the uncharitable characterization must have gnawed inside her Unido running mate. On the other hand, when Miriam Defensor Santiago called all congressmen "fungus-faced," I doubt whether anyone in particular felt alluded to. Besides, the sheer entertainment value, of her chosen words, of her manner of delivery, softened the blow of the insult, took out the sting. Jinggoy's failed attempt at satire falls somewhere between Cory's putdown and Miriam's hyperbole, and it set me thinking: What was, in our history, the best political insult ever?

As Randy David pointed out, there's such a thing as The politics of holidays:

Most holidays fall on fixed dates in the calendar—like birthdays, death anniversaries, wedding anniversaries, Independence Day and Christmas Day. Others follow the cosmic rhythm of the seasons—like the holy days of Lent in the lengthening days of spring. By their nature, holidays are never convenient; they are precisely meant to interrupt the routine carved by work in our daily lives. They are necessary pauses, memory markers creating space for special reflection—distinct from the normal weekend or the long holiday breaks we take in order to rest.

At the time he wrote his column, Congress had passed a law that still awaited the President's signature. She could have vetoed it, but instead, she signed it. And so, Republic Act 9492 is now in force and effect. It makes many formerly fixed national holidays moveable, so as to create long weekends. The holidays that were once permanent fixtures of our official calendar, but which have now been divorced from their original dates, are the following (not including holidays that fall on days that vary from year to year, anyway, like Maundy Thursday, Good Friday, and Eidul Fitr): Araw ng Kagitingan - Monday nearest April 9 Labor Day - Monday nearest May 1 Independence Day    - Monday nearest June 12 Ninoy Aquino Day    - Monday nearest August 21 National Heroes Day - Last Monday of August Bonifacio Day - Monday nearest November 30 Rizal Day - Monday nearest December 30 These are non-working holidays. Working holidays have, obviously, been left untouched. The most controversial among these new, moveable holidays is Independence Day. Some argue that we now have the (unenviable) distinction of being the only nation on earth, that has divorced its Independence Day from the actual historical date. Other days, too, such as Bonifacio's birth anniversary and Rizal's death anniversary, have been detached from their actual dates as well. The debate concerning our official attitudes concerning holidays got me to jump-start a project I conceived a long time ago, and which I've been doing research on, from time to time, for close to a decade. I've set up a Wiki called Official Calendar of the Republic. I invite you to take a look, and if anyone has information they'd like to contribute, kindly leave me a comment here. Among the interesting things I discovered is that the change in holidays has officially divorced us, not only from the actual dates on which certain events took place, but with our countrymen who once upon a time, until now, always commemorated those dates. For example, see the Month of November. Bonifacio's birthday was established as holiday, by law, in 1921. From 1921 to 2006, then, Filipinos always commemorated that day as a holiday: whether it was under the American, the Japanese, or our own flag. But henceforth, Bonifacio Day will wander and be determined more by "holiday economics" than the need to actually recall the Great Plebeian. Take a look, too, at other months. February or October, for example. There are some months dedicated to a certain theme; weeks also dedicated to a certain commemoration; and days, either determined by law or presidential proclamation, that are meant to commemorate certain things as well. This has been going on for generations, and eventually, since many executive issuances and law are in effect for perpetuity unless specifically repealed or revoked, our official calendar is going to be very cluttered, indeed.

I recently started teaching a class in opinion writing at Letran College, and so far, I'm happy with my class (no, this doesn't mean there's any guarantee they will pass). People I've talked to who belong to an older generation, often end up recalling they used to have a subject in school called "good manners and right conduct." I think all of us will, sooner or later, feeling the nostalgia our elders feel, for the manners of their era. A professor who blogs is The Bunker Chronicles, and he has a a rather depressing entry on how students behave:

For the third straight class day, one of my Philippine History classes went under the microscopic observation of one of the school's coordinators. It was a very sorry sight for the coordinator to see the blatant and wanton disregard and disrespect for authority displayed by the students of that class. I was saddened. Although I tried not to say it in class yesterday, but I finally broke out and confessed to them that I might lose my teaching job because of their attitude. Whoever taught these kids that this is the right way to do things ought to be given enlightenment lessons on the proper way to use our constitutional right to free expression. Democracy in its purest and finest form back in the days of the free-wheeling Athenians in Greece, wasn't meant to be like this. We have democracy simply because each person's views are different from each other. It was not a license though for anyone to freely trample on other people's rights. That is already considered an "unschooled" behavior, like mad cows let loose from a corral after being contained inside for days.

But even as you ponder what that blogger suggests, here's another entry that makes for sobering reading. A Nagueno in the Blogosphere is one of my favorite blogs. Its written by Willy Prilles, Jr., a consultant on education to the city government of Naga. Read his entry, which is a reproduction of his weekly column in a Bicol newspaper, on the true state of Philippine education:

Four years ago (the earliest data available), only 67 of every 100 pupils that enrolled in Grade I managed to finish Grade VI; as of last school year, it went down to 57. Which means only around 6 of every 10 children entering our elementary schools manage to graduate. The situation is much worse in high school. Six years ago, 71 of every 100 First Year students were able to secure a high school diploma; as of last school year, it went down to 54. And here is the rub: remember that only 60% of our children are able to complete elementary and eligible to move on to high school. If we factor this in, the real completion rate all the way from Grade I is this: for every 100 pupils who enter Grade I, only 30 will eventually finish high school. The DepEd used to compute this particularly damning statistic, but it stopped doing so starting in 2005. To summarize: of every 100 six or seven year olds that are supposed to enter Grade I, only 84 are able to do so; of these 84 only 57 are able to finish Grade VI and move on to First Year; and of these 57, only 30 will be able to graduate with a high school diploma.

Read it and weep.

Ninoy Aquino was elected into the Senate 40 years ago, the lone Liberal afloat in a sea of Nacionalistas. His son and namesake, Benigno Aquino III, celebrated his own entry into the Senate yesterday with a fitting act: He used his first-ever speech on the Senate floor to honor his father's memory, by nominating "a man who shares my father's history." Noynoy Aquino was the second to nominate Aquilino Pimentel Jr., after repeat Senate topnotcher Loren Legarda. While Loren spoke of Pimentel's "towering virtues" and described his struggles during martial law as "the stuff of legend," Noynoy invoked his sainted father's own high regard for Pimentel. The young Aquino said Pimentel was the right man to lead an opposition-dominated Senate, and called him "the true face of the opposition." Only one senator nominated Pimentel's rival for the Senate presidency: Pia Cayetano, who spoke warmly of her "distinguished colleague" Manny Villar and his "sterling performance" as Senate President.  She described Villar as a statesman who was "respected as a senator, admired as a Speaker of the House of Representatives, and recognized as a titan in business." After the Senate voted 15-7 in favor of Villar, five senators took turns explaining their vote. Jinggoy Estrada said his vote for Villar was "a vote for continuity of what this chamber" had done against "a de facto dictatorship." (He also implored his colleagues to "look beyond narrow divisions of administration and opposition.") Ping Lacson, who does not seem given to making small talk with his seatmates Jamby Madrigal and Loren, spoke next: He said he voted for Pimentel out of principle and "not because of political attachment, because we have none." Kiko Pangilinan (Villar) came next, followed by an intense Madrigal (Pimentel) who lashed out at her candidate's rival in stinging terms: "statesmen are willing to be jailed, businessmen are not made of the same mettle." Then came Chiz Escudero. The new senator used his first-ever speech to assert what amounted to a new political principle: He said no one had the right to judge him.  Hence today's column: "So young, and so disappointing."

MONDAY brings the President's 7th State of the Nation Address, though a valid point's raised in this article: Why no SONA, if there’s no Speaker by Monday:

Cagayan de Oro Rep. Rufus Rodriguez said the rules require that the House inform the Senate via a resolution that it has been organized and was ready to receive the President for the SONA. “Without a Speaker, a secretary general and a sergeant at arms, there is no organization of the House. If there is no organization of the House, there can be no resolution saying that it is ready to receive the President,” said Rodriguez, a first-termer who is a lawyer.

Anyway, a funny piece in The Professional Heckler on Top 10 Things to Observe When President Arroyo Delivers Her 7th State of the Nation Address. But let me repeat, here, an objection I raised a year ago back in my blog:

Let me say that some senators and congressmen being a no-show, to my mind, is wrong. Just as the chief executive is required to report to Congress in person, I believe Congress is required to attend and listen (respect for the office, whether or not legitimately held by a person).

I still feel strongly about this. Opposition to try new ways of protesting Arroyo’s SONA shows how muddled people's minds can get. If opposition members want to show in black, or with black armbands, or waving peach-colored flowers, I think that would be a legitimate protest. They could refuse to applaud, they could all frown and scowl; why, I'd even go as far as to say it's OK for them to boo and hiss. But I really do think they should show up. Incidentally, an oldie but goodie continues to be, ahem, The Explainer on ANC: SONA Sources.

I've been meaning to do this for some time; this blog has had the good fortune to be read by prolific commenters, and it is only right that we recognize what they do for our particular corner of the so-called blogosphere. Without them, Inquirer Current would lose much of its electricity, its snap and crackle. In a very real (or really virtual?) sense, this is their blog too. Let me cite three of them in particular: Bert, Kabayan, and OFW in Afghanistan. They are not often on the same side of an issue, or reading from the same page (if I read between the lines correctly, they were not even on especially cordial terms in this blog's early days); their frequent interventions, however, have helped turn this blog's comment threads into a real forum. If I'm not mistaken, three of our most commented-on posts are Manolo's discussion of presidential timber in the senatorial forest, his take on Korean assertiveness, and my singing of the post-Zubiri blues. In each of them, you will find, among the other voices, Bert, Kabayan, and OFW commenting away. Something Bert wrote, in the middle of a sometimes sharp-edged discussion about possible presidential candidates, struck the right note about our role as participants -- as posters, responders, reply-ers -- in the public discourse. 

Let’s blog, post, argue and quarrel about everything, anything political. That’s one way of making our voices heard. Every one of us, what ever our views, have one thing in common-and that is that we all want the best happening to our beloved country and people. We want the best for ourselves in our lifetime, and the future of our next generations. This common denominator is the one force causing the continuing political upheavals and turmoil happening in all those years in our country resulting from our grim determination to find the ideal government officials we want that could give light to our aspirations. It’s so sad that as of this moment we are still stuck with the lot of them that have failed us, including this present government. Adding salt to injury, advertently or inadvertently, unheeding of our contempt and displeasure we have bestowed them, they are still making moves and plan to perpetuate themselves on us forever by this plan to do the CHA-CHA. ARE WE GOING TO LET THEM? Please reply, the future of the our next generations are in your hands.

Blogger Left Flank points to a mention I made (in my blog) about the ongoing diplomatic tussle involving Filipinos and visas. He says the Korean ambassador was being "snarky," and that the "apology" the Korean diplomat made was meaningless. The current fracas is diplomatic par for the course. You don't like what certain people are doing to your countrymen, make it more difficult for their countrymen to get visas to your country. However, as news like this: Britain expels Russian diplomats amid Cold War clouds. And this:  Russia readies 'targeted' response to London, shows,  from getting nasty about visas, it can be several quick steps to being nasty to each other's diplomats, and then for countries to be nasty to each other. I do agree with the blogger above, though. The Korean Ambassador really only apologized for not formally advising the Philippine government that the South Korean embassy intended to put Filipinos through the wringer. So, he said sorry to the DFA but the policy remains in place. But then, no one ever said the Korean's aren't aggressive about their interests.

My first column came out today; it is, of course, mostly political, and follows what my editors call a "condo" format. It's a condominium of uneven but discrete units. Today's main topic: the real stakes in the contest for Speaker of the House, at least as far as the President is concerned. Spent the whole day at the Supreme Court-organized summit (and I mean the whole day; it was my car's coding day, so I was at the Manila Hotel before 7 am and left after 7 pm). I will post about some of the highlights later this week; for now, however, here's something that can help put Chief Justice Reynato Puno's closing address ---- summarized in this story's headline ---- in some perspective. "Let us rather engage in a conspiracy of hope," Puno said. The phrase "conspiracy of hope," however, was first used by Ed Garcia, peace advocate and a member of the 1986 Constitutional Commission, earlier in the afternoon, to describe the long-term challenge facing the summit's delegates. Puno paid tribute to Garcia's presentation (easily the best of all 12 group reports) by borrowing both idea and phrase.

The proclamation of Migz Zubiri as the 12th senator elected in the 2007 mid-term polls ---- despite evidence that the results in Maguindanao province were manufactured, by and large ---- was deeply depressing news. I don't mean it wasn't inevitable; in fact, that was what was wrong with Zubiri's "victory" in the first place. It was slow-motion theft; we could all see it coming, a mile away, and in the end we couldn't prevent it from happening. This same sense of frustration may have moved the Black and White Movement to release a statement, drenched in sarcasm, a few hours after the proclamation. If you need a little pick-me-up, give it a read: YA GOTTA HAND IT TO MIGZ   GOD helps those that help themselves. So when Migz Zubiri thanked God, he was also thanking Gloria, Garci, Bedol, and Abalos: the faces of our modern "democrazy". Imagine that.  The power and the glory now belong to Migz, now, if not forever. We commiserate with Chavit Singson ­ how in heaven's name could Chavit have lost his top rank to Migz?  Poor guy must be really depressed.  What a difference a month makes. Chavit was once upon a time first in Maguindanao: but as we now know, there are lies, damned lies, and statistics.  Even the improbable ones. Now, Migz owes a lot. When he thanked God, Mama Mary, and all the saints, he was being a grateful person. Grateful, maybe not to the people of Maguindanao, but definitely thankful to all those who helped make his election as credible as Mrs. Arroyo's 2004 victory. As the second most impoverished province of ARMM, we can only hope Maguindanao gets the attention it deserves from him and that it's not just the usual suspects, who get to enjoy the blessings helping Migz win will give. As for the millions of us that voted for Koko Pimentel, we had it coming. We were old-fashioned enough to believe what mattered more was a genuine mandate, that our votes would count as much as the votes for Migz. How were we to know, that neither our votes nor Migz' votes, mattered at all? What mattered most was never in the public's hands: it was the counting, and who did the counting, that mattered. It didn't even matter if the votes were there, and it didn't matter if all anyone wanted was a chance to vote again, without terrorism and manufactured documents substituting for an election.

Let's agree on one thing. Indulging our fully justified sense of outrage, and calling on the government to stop the peace talks with the Moro Islamic Liberation Front because of last Tuesday's barbaric ambush in Basilan, is the easier option. The harder (indeed, for some, almost impossible) choice is to keep one's head. Leave aside the posturing of the usual congressmen who have always been against the very notion of a peace agreement with Moro separatists; we are better off considering the opinion of the likes of Dean Bocobo of Philippine Commentary, who is undoubtedly an intelligent man. What does his screed against the measured position taken by the Inquirer, in the matter of the savage beheadings of our Marines in Basilan, tell us, but that even intelligent men can get it wrong? The Inquirer editorial's appeal for "an iron fist and an open mind" seems to me to strike the necessary balance between the need to bring the decapitators to swift justice ---- preferably in the form of a massive military counterattack ---- and the greater need to resolve the Moro separatist issue. Resolution, considering our history, the state of our military, and the nature of the separatist movement, may best be achieved through a peace agreement. Dean may not agree, but surely he can grant those who think differently from him the same reasonableness and patriotism he seems to assume for himself? Tall order, that. Dean writes:

The editorial uses all the right buzz words, but it is dripping with insincerity, disingenuity and manages to blame the authorities for the tragedy. The motivation of the editorial is to embarrass the govt and excuse the terrorists.

Just because Dean cannot wrap his mind around it, doesn't mean that the idea of a balanced response is unsound. In fact, by slyly equating "fair conclusion" with excuses for the terrorists, Dean is being intellectually dishonest. Is a fair peace agreement necessarily a surrender of the government's sovereign prerogatives or a capitulation before the forces of terrorism? Dean protests too much. The editorial, it seems to me, calls for retaliating with full force against those who beheaded our Marines. But it does not adopt the knee-jerk reaction of some, that the peace talks be scuttled, immediately, because of last Tuesday's barbarity. For once, an Inquirer editorial position agrees completely with the official Malacanang policy. A short statement from the Palace, employing a memorable turn of phrase, formulated it succinctly.

“We will run after those who killed our Marines, but we will not run away from the peace talks,” Arroyo said in a statement forwarded by Press Secretary Ignacio Bunye. “Our desire to see the killers punished is matched only by our determination to forge peace,” she added.

That seems reasonable, and patriotic, enough.

It has been a month since my last post; my apologies for dropping off the radar screen, but I have been unusually busy. With luck, this busy-ness, or at least parts of it, should bear fruit starting next week. My thanks to colleague Manolo for keeping the blog going, and to our growing band of readers who continue to post very interesting comments indeed. (More about this, later this week.)  On to the present, which, as luck would have it, is all about the past: I was struck last month by a column of Billy Esposo's in the Star, which offered an assessment of the columnist's reliability as a political crystal-ball gazer. I thought Esposo did the honorable thing: Unlike any other mainstream media political commentator I know, he asked his readers to judge his political prognostications. But a close look at his column, and at other columns he had written (easily accessible here), tells us that Esposo undermined his own experiment, by choosing to write about only those predictions that had, willy-nilly, come true. In other words, Esposo inserted a new mono-bloc into journalism's musical chairs game ---- and then promptly wrecked it. On June 14, Esposo wrote:

In my February 15, 2007 column, I wrote: “Given the imperfections of each member in both camps, you will find at least eight Opposition candidates who are virtually unbeatable. These are (with their corresponding ranking in the Pulse Asia survey): (1) Loren Legarda, (2) Senator Panfilo Lacson, (3) Senator Francis Pangilinan, (4) Taguig-Pateros Rep. Alan Peter Cayetano, (6) Senate President Manuel Villar Jr., (10) Aquilino Pimentel III, (13) House minority leader Francis Escudero and (14) Tarlac Rep. Benigno Aquino III.

In fact, Esposo did include that key paragraph in his February 15 column. He also wrote the following, which he reprinted in his June 14 column:

About Antonio Trillanes IV, I wrote: “Mutineer Antonio Trillanes is not an unknown unlike the Gloria Macapagal Arroyo (GMA) administration’s Petilla and Kiram. The Oakwood Mutiny has made Trillanes a national figure although it remains to be seen if he had roused enough pizzazz to get voted to the Senate the same way as Gringo Honasan.” Save for Koko Pimentel, all those I mentioned as winnable have already won. Escudero and Aquino did climb to better rankings, to second and sixth, respectively. Trillanes was the phenomenal winner of the elections.

Did Esposo, as early as the start of the national campaign period, already identify the opposition winners? He included Pangilinan in the opposition line-up, yes, but aside from that minor detail, did he in fact predict, in the middle of February, the winning candidates of the opposition? Not exactly. In the February column, he also wrote:

Another Opposition candidate, John Osmeña is perching on the 13th rung. Those trailing Osmeña will find it hard to overtake him from his present ranking. His position bolstered by the big Cebuano vote, Osmena could well be the 9th winning Opposition senator.

In fact, the big Cebuano vote did not materialize for Osmena. He did not even place in the Cebu province's first 12. Did Esposo correctly predict Trillanes' phenomenal win?  Not exactly. The handful of words on Trillanes that he reprinted in his June column actually formed part of a longish passage:

Compared to the unheard of personalities in the administration lineup, the other Opposition candidates have the edge. For one, Nikki Coseteng cannot be considered an unknown. Coseteng has been elected Senator before. Mutineer Antonio Trillanes is not an unknown unlike the administration’s Petilla and Kiram. The Oakwood Mutiny has made Trillanes a national figure although it remains to be seen if he had roused enough pizzazz to get voted to the Senate the same way as Gringo Honasan. Raul Roco’s widow, Sonia Malasarte Roco, carries with her the name of the "best president we never had" and the Bicol vote is as reliable as the Ilocano and Cebuano votes. She has qualities on her own. Compared to Petilla, Magsaysay and Kiram, Sonia has better chances. The Gloria baggage Ultimately, the outcome of the senatorial race will be determined by the weight of the baggage that the administration candidates carry. Many of them having neither facial familiarity nor name recall, their biggest handicap is really being part of the team identified with Gloria Macapagal Arroyo.

In other words, any one of the trailing opposition candidates ---- Coseteng, Trillanes, Roco ---- could have landed in the winning circle too, because of GMA, their rivals' "biggest handicap." Esposo ends his June 14 column with a thumping conclusion: "How does one maintain a reliable election crystal ball? Say what is truthfully in your heart and mind, what your best lights tell you." Well, Esposo's best lights also told him that Manila was not Senator Fred Lim's for the taking.

Many people are under the impression that the mayoralty fight in the City of Manila is a toss-up between Senator Fred Lim and Ali Atienza. However, incumbent vice mayor Danny Lacuna emerges as the man to beat.

In that same column, he predicted that Benjie Lim would beat Joe de Venecia in Pangasinan.

Meanwhile, in the 4th District of Pangasinan, Dagupan City Mayor Benjie Lim is poised to unseat House Speaker Joe de Venecia (JDV). Sources in the province and the 4th District say that Dagupan City — a Benjie Lim bailiwick — comprises the biggest voting block of the contested seat. As it is turning out, JDV is more of a national figure while Lim is the bigger local presence.

No question, Esposo was writing what was truthfully in his heart and mind. Perhaps that's why he got the Lim and JDV elections wrong. To be sure, it isn't easy making predictions. Hats off to Esposo for forcing the issue, reminding all media consumers that we really ought to hold our political analysts to a higher standard.  But having started the debate, he fell prey to the sort of expectation-management he has so often railed against. A pity. It would be interesting, of course, to find out exactly how other analysts, such as our own Manolo or Dean Bocobo of Philippine Commentary, fared in the crystal-ball-gazing department. I have already written about this before, but the PR expert Manolo talked to before the start of the campaign was spectacularly wrong about the chances of Edgardo Angara. In March, Dean allowed some less-than-rigorous readings of the latest SWS survey to see virtual print. Some excerpts:

4. Alan Peter Cayetano is gaining quickly on these early leaders, compared to the January survey published by Pulse Asia, Inc. and seems destined to become a Senator that will give the First Gent and the administration a lot of headaches once he gets there. I'm going out on a limb to say that he could even top the Senate race as Loren continues to lose support, possibly from the fallout of Tony Leviste's murder rap. 9. I am glad that Joker Arroyo will be battling Ed Angara, Koko Pimentel, Mike Defensor, and even Sonia Roco for the 12th and last spot. He may yet be shown the exit door, now that he doesn't have Jojo Binay to help him win an election. 10. I've include #25 Chavit Singson, only to gloat over what his partner Joker Arroyo is facing too: defeat at the polls! They can all be appointed with Davide to the UN and sent packing out of the country.

Unlike Esposo's reading of the political tea leaves, however, Dean's prognostication did have a saving grace:

11. There is of course nothing fixed or final about these results. One dynamic that is very hard to gauge is how votes for candidates that will now be seen as having little chance of winning will be redistributed by the voters to the remaining contestants. Organization, as in the case of Angara can translate such votes into important margins needed for victory. And of course, there is still the deus ex machina kind of machinery...

THAT phrase is being reported around the world, and locally: RP Catholic Church ready to hold Latin masses. As the religion to which most Filipinos, at least statistically, belong, goings-on in the Roman Catholic Church are always interesting -and relevant. What the present Pope, Benedict XVI, has decreed, Motu Proprio, that is, on his own initiative, is that many of the old limitations on celebrating the old Tridentine Rite of the Mass, have been removed. The Weight of Glory has a roundup of Catholic blogger reactions. See also The Byzantine Dominican, and First Things, which calls the Pope's decree a "liberal document." Incidentally, in Ad Orientem, there's an entry from some time back, on why the Eastern Orthodox care about the Latin Mass. Since reunification with the Eastern Churches is a particular interest of the present Pope, his new decree might have fringe benefits not readily seen in terms of Christian unity. Whispers in the Loggia is a blog I've mentioned before, it's a good guide to goings-on in the R.C. Church, and it reports on what the Pope hoped to achieve by issuing his latest decree (it is, he says, "this pontificate's most significant text"). Dr. Robert Moynihan is a well-known "Vaticanologist," and his "Inside the Vatican"  Magazine and newsletter often give the inside scoop on the workings of the oldest government on earth. His report, The Old Mass Returns, gives the political and theological inside story on the Pope's decision. The Pope's decree is already known as Summorum Pontificum (most Papal documents get their titles from the first few words in the definitive Latin text of those documents): see the English translation and other relevant texts. The Pope also issued a letter to the bishops of the Catholic world, explaining the reasons behind, and the objectives of, his decree. Catholics pining for the old rite will be happy; most Catholics born since the 1960's have no idea how the Mass used to be celebrated, and probably wouldn't care for the rituals of the old rite. But around the world, there's a growing number of young Catholics (including priests) unhappy with the jazz guitar masses and general relaxing of the old discipline of the Catholic church, and they might just be attracted to the old rituals. On the whole, it's a sign that the Catholic Church, institutionally, is slowly backing away from its 60's style activism and returning to a more traditional understanding and expression of the faith. Or, as the Pope put it, of "arbitrary deformations of the liturgy." He was the one, after all, who columnist Maureen Dowd praised on his election, saying, "The cafteria is closed," referring to the idea of  "cafeteria Catholics".

Two articles make for thought-provoking reading this weekend. The first is Michael Tan's Tisoy Kasi!, a romp through history, language, how we currently see ourselves and how we can see ourselves not only in a better, but more realistic light:

The historian Benedict Anderson writes about how Filipinos seem to have gone through a lobotomy, a removal of a part of the brain responsible for memory. The amnesia is selective of course; we leave out bits and pieces of our colonial history, and practically all of our precolonial past. Most Filipinos know little about the precolonial era. In part, this is because of colonialism, both Spanish and American, and the way the precolonial period was depicted as a kind of Dark Age, of ignorant pagan natives running around naked. With the nationalist period of the 1970s, the pendulum swung to the other end as we romanticized the precolonial period in our search for The Authentic Filipino. It is important, certainly, to go back to our precolonial period, but not to look for a pure Filipino culture. In the first place, the “Filipino” did not come into existence until the 19th century, and initially, it was a term reserved for Spaniards born in the Philippines. Later, it was expropriated by Rizal and other ilustrados, the illuminated bourgeoisie, who could see a Filipino as a loyal subject of Spain. The roots of what we call Filipino culture today do date back to the precolonial period, and there is still much to do here around archaeology, anthropology, and linguistics to reconstruct that period. But what we have so far is already fascinating, including the way it reflects how our cultures were constantly being hybridized during that time... ...We need to avoid two extremes: One is to continue wallowing in a colonial mentality that sees only Western influences as good. The other is to attempt to look for a pure precolonial past. All cultures are hybrids and it can be fascinating unraveling all the sources and processes involved in this hybridization. Once we recognize that we are all mestizo, the product of more than one culture, we might better appreciate ourselves — and humanity.

The second is Breaking the Colonial-Cum-Victim-Cum-Cinderella Mentality, by Big Mango:

It is the great and profound gift of the Internet that allows for conservative ideas as much as liberal ones. Those ideas flow freely both ways, creating diversity and discussion. That's the most essential thing to raise the bar. Not only can we laugh at the mindless things we can find on the Internet or delve to the mundane, but we can also raise the bar of understanding and rationality or choose either the conservative or liberal route. Where else can we find such a rich diversity of ideas, beliefs, point of views, and focus? that's not the real test, is it? if you're reading this you probably are part of the converted, as in converted to the wonders of the 'Net. The test is getting others to see this beauty. The test is getting them all online to taste the richness and profoundness and quiet simplicity of this gift and open them to a world beyond celebrities' scandalous lives. The first point of this post is to state that every generation sees decadence in it and in the generation that it sired. We can reopen discourse, we can return to civility and reason and understanding and thus, raise the bar of expectation. the second point of this post is accepting ideas, even though we hate it in our guts. It means thinking out of the box. It means embracing the mundane to the serious in a holistic way and, that is how we break the vicious cycle of what {caffeine_sparks} called "our culture of colonial-cum-victim-cum-Cinderella mentality".

Both articles happily remind me of something my father wrote on national identity way back in 1996:

Just what our culture consists of, I am not competent to say. I can say, however, that it is extremely complex. It is that very complexity which often leads Occidentals to classify us either as Occidentals with brown skins or Orientals with a very superficial Western veneer. It is that same complexity which leads some Asians to say that we are not Asian at all, although Indians, Chinese, Japanese, Indonesians, Nepalese, Syrians, etc. do not deny it of each other, much as they differ among themselves. It is that same complexity which bewilders us and drives us to attempt a total identification with West or East (in the sense in which Asians sometimes exclude us from it), an attempt impossible in one case, meaningless in the other. It is the same complexity from which some try to escape by taking refuge in an imaginative reconstruction, more or less accurate as the case may be, of Philippine culture at the time of Magellan’s arrival, setting up that culture as the only true Philippine culture and de-Filipinizing all subsequent generations, including our own. In my opinion this attitude is untenable. It separates the pre-Spanish from subsequent cultural developments, considering the former as wholly indigenous—they were not, in the narrow sense of the word—and the latter as spurious. The attitude gives too much credit to the ability of Spanish and American culture to supplant our previous culture and replace it with something different; the attitude also gives no credit whatsoever to our ancestors for any capacity to transform and assimilate foreign influences, giving them a distinctively Filipino character. One who holds such a view turns his back to the most significant and most remarkable—I would say most admirable—fact about our culture and ourselves: that complexity has not prevented unity, nor unity led to monotonous uniformity. Instead of our being proud of our unique cultural achievement—it is our achievement, not the Spaniards’ or the Americans’—we are ashamed of ourselves, see only the faults and dangers of our culture and see them magnified out of all proportion.