|
For the past 17 years, The Filipino Express has provided the Filipino American community the best news, arts and entertainment coverage from around the United States and the Philippines.
|
|
This website includes selected articles from this week's edition of the Filipino Express. Not all the stories published in the printed version appear on this site.
|
|
|
|
To tell us what you think about Filipino Express Online or to comment on the stories published here, E-mail us at Filexpress@aol.com
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TOO OFTEN, the press has been villified as bringers of bad news, of being too obsessed with criticizing government and official policies and of digging up dirt against public officials and public figures.
Much of the criticism against the press and newsmen stem from a lack of understanding of what the press is all about; about the role the press and journalists play in a democratic society.
From the outset, it may look like the press is all of the above. But a deeper appreciation of its role in society can at least help us understand why it has to be that way.
Believe it or not, in journalism, there is no good news nor bad news; nor is there positive or negative news. What is bad news for one party may be good news to one. A story about a government officials’ indictment in court for stealing public fund may be bad news for that official; but it is definitely good news for the public, because at least, with the court action, their taxpayers’ money is safe for the time being.
Another complaint that we hear too often is that the press only publishes stories that are critical of government. We hear this from government officials: Why don’t the media publish accomplishments of the government?
That accusation is a lie. Newspapers do publish, radio and TV news do air stories about good things government has done. But to compel the media to do so is tantamount to the press losing its independence. There is another reason why the press is not inclined to report good deeds by the government. A government is expected to do good deeds. Nothing extraordinary about it. Remember that news is about the unusual. But a government official, or a public figure caught violating the law is theoretically performing an act out of the ordinary.
Moreover, the press does not kowtow with the powers-that-be and instead serves as a watchdog because it considers its work as a public trust.
It keeps an eye on abuse of power, be it political or economic, because it wants to protect the public interest. In doing so, the media subjects public officials and public figures to the highest possible ethical standard.
As a result, not too many government leaders and wannabe despots are too happy with the media. As for us, we actually feel we are doing a good job of protecting the public interest if people in power despise us.
As Thomas Jefferson once said, “ The press is a necessary evil in a democratic society.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Martin Luther King’s memory lives
|
|
|
|
NEW YORK --- Almost a year ago, The Filipino Express, in its editorial, reminded us of Dr. Martin Luther King’s speech, “The Three Dimensions of a Complete Life”. King delivered this speech at the New Covenant Baptist Church in Chicago on April 1967 where he said: “If life itself is to be complete, it must be three-dimensional.”
As we celebrate King’s life this Monday, Jan. 16, I thought it was fitting to revisit what he had said in that speech. Paraphrasing the editorial, King was quoted as saying that three words fit a complete life that is three dimensional: length, breadth and height.
King said that the length of life “is the inward concern for one’s welfare,” which causes “one to push forward, to achieve his own goals and ambitions.”
The breadth of life represents “one’s concern for the welfare of others.”
Finally, the height dimension “is the upward concern for God.”
I find King’s analogy as simple as it sounds. As human beings, particularly as Filipinos in a foreign land, there is that innate drive to be better and to achieve our dreams. Hence, we saw ourselves taking on courses to become lawyers, doctors, nurses, engineers, etc. To earn a college degree was our motivation.
When I was younger, I was always reminded to set my goals and strive to achieve them. And then when we moved to America and when I joined the Jaycees,it was impressed upon me that “if it is to be, it is up to me.” This means that whatever happens to anyone it is that person’s own making.
It was through the Jaycees that I learned that money is not everything; it is about living the organization’s creed of 65 words, which begin with an affirmation in our belief in God and ends with a declaration that “service to humanity is the best work of life.”
Through the goals which I’ve set for myself, I worked myself up the leadership ladder in the local, state, national and international levels of the organization. And I’ve earned it despite the color of my skin not through money but with ability, performance and a vision.
And it is through my involvement with the Jaycees, which drove me to the breadth of life, which King talked about: “concern for the welfare of others.” As any Jaycee member would attest, whenever that last line of the creed is recited in Jaycee functions, we put not only reverence in saying it but passion in it. It is a lifetime belief that “service to humanity is the best work of life.”
I’ve seen many Jaycees projects that impact the lives of people in a community. A visit to the websites of the local organizations in New York City, the state, national and international organizations will tell you thousands of projects that benefited millions of people worldwide.
And as King said in his speech: “But don’t stop here either. You know a lot of people master the length of life, and they master the breadth of life and they stop right there. Now if life is to be complete, we must move beyond our self-interest. We must move beyond humanity and reach up, way up for the God of the universe, whose purpose changeth not.”
Again, I am reminded of the first line of the Jaycee creed, which says: “I believe that faith in God gives meaning and purpose to life.”
To me, that says it all. I admit –just like everyone else should – that we are all blessed with everything that life can offer. We owe ourselves this life to a God – the creator of heaven and earth. And it is but fitting to give back all the glory and honor to Him.
Without Him, we are nothing; no length of life, no bread of life. We all need this important spiritual dimension in us to have a complete life.
But as King observed: “Now a lot of people have neglected this third dimension. And you know, the interesting thing is a lot of people neglect and don’t even know they are neglecting it. They just get involved in other things.”
And adds that: “...They become so involved in thinking about man’s progress that they forget to think about the need for God’s power in history. They end up going days and days not knowing that God is not with them.”
Just as King said, we need God.
Indeed, if life is to be complete, it has to have the three dimensions that King mentioned. And we remember King, not only for how he changed the way America viewed and treated minority citizens, but also because of his insights in life which he left us with.
Being a minority myself, I’ve always admired King’s courageous advocacy for African Americans. As mentioned in the editorial, “we as a community of ethnic origin, who are neither white nor black, received the same rights and privileges,” which King espoused for his people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Chicago, ILLINOIS --- In the light of the indictment of four US Marines before the Philippine court for allegedly raping a Filipino woman in the Philippines last November, it’s about time the Philippine government review the Visiting Forces Agreement.
This agreement signed by Philippine Foreign Affairs Secretary Domingo L. Siazon, Jr. during the Ramos administration and by United States Ambassador to the Philippines Thomas C. Hubbard in February 1998 on behalf of their respective governments is really a remnant of the RP-US Bases Treaty that was soundly rejected by the Philippine Senate in 1991.
First of all, this executive agreement is a desperate attempt by the US government to cling on occupying a country it conquered with the use of deceit and propaganda.
Aside from violating the 1987 Philippine Constitution, the VFA is nothing but an effort by the Philippine government to scrape some discarded military hardware from the US government.
Secondly, the agreement served nothing but the US interests. The US military are in the Philippines for bragging rights – they are using the Philippines as a ground zero to tout and test-fire its latest state-of-the-art weaponry. It also sends an unmistakable signal that the US is there to protect the interest of the US MNCs (multinational corporations) doing business in the Philippines.
US Could Not Even Tame the Moros
The US military cannot really claim with authority that they are there to train Filipino soldiers to fight terrorists. How can the US military train the Filipino soldiers when the US military could not even tame the Moros (Muslim rebels) in the south during the last one hundred years?
Whenever they would attack the Moros, Americans would use the Filipino soldiers as decoys and shields in the front lines. It was a Filipino soldier who won a US Congressional Medal of Honor for his heroism in his battle against the Moros in the early part of the last century.
The kris-wielding Muslim juramentados (amoks), who go thru an elaborate ritual and dedication to kill as many Christians (Spanish and Americans) as possible as part of their suicide missions in the name of Allah, have never been subdued by American colonialists. Otherwise, the Abbu Sayyaf, which means Bearer of Sword in Arabic, would not have prospered in ambushing government forces, kidnappings, piracy and beheading of captives.
The juramentados are the forerunners of mujahiddens, who are taking on the lives of American soldiers in Afghanistan as their personal duties to their God to continue to fight to death. And, of course, included in this variety are the stealthy suicide bombers.
Could not Even Scare Malaysia
On a more contemporary scheme of things, when Malaysia annexed the oil-rich Sabah owned by the Philippines’ Sultan of Sulu, the US military bases could not even scare away the Malaysian confederation from encroaching on the Philippine territory.
As a result, the huge US military bases in Angeles and Olongapo cities were nothing but huge R & R (rest and recreation) centers by vising US soldiers from other parts of the world, turning those cities into the world’s sexually transmitted diseases’ centers.
No wonder, US soldiers are pre-occupied with chasing skirts of Filipino women, instead of chasing Abbu Sayyaf.
When the US military bases were holding sway in the Philippines, the bases became the first lines of attack by the Japanese Imperial Forces during World War II, leaving Manila the worst devastated capital in the world next only to Warsaw. While the US offered Europe a “Marshall Plan,” the Philippines got crumbs. If not for the staunch defense of the Filipino soldiers and guerillas, the US had no chance in winning the World War II in the Philippines.
Violation of RP Constitution
Under the 1987 Philippine Constitution, nuclear-armed ships and airplanes are not allowed on Philippine soil. The VFA does not have any such prohibition.
If there is a friendly fire from those military maneuvers; and Filipino soldiers are killed in the crossfire, the dead and injured Filipino soldiers will not be compensated by the US government under the VFA. If the Philippine government would like to keep this agreement, then, it should buy sizable amount of insurance premiums for the Filipino soldiers involved in war games.
If US soldiers, on liberty, create trouble by raping Filipino women, custody is primarily exercised by the US government, instead of voluntarily surrendering the erring soldiers to the Philippine authorities. It is an indication that the US government does not respect the authority of the Philippine government.
If the Philippine government looks the other way to let the VFA continue, hoping that the US government will repay its accommodation with defense equipment, the Philippine government should think again. If the US government is going to give the Philippines military hardware, chances are these military equipments are nothing but outdated and discarded equipments.
Money, not equipment
If the US really wants to give the Philippines defense equipments, the US should give the Philippines money, not in kind, so the Philippines can use the dollars in shopping for modern arms equipments available in the world market at competitive prices, not America’s lucrative prices.
And most of all if the VFA provides for the holding of military maneuver in the Philippine shores, the same agreement should also provide to let thousands of Filipino soldiers hold military exercises in the United States shores. And if the Filipino soldiers will molest American women, the errant Filipino soldiers should be confined in the Philippine Embassy in Washington, not turned over to the US Marshals!
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Constitution as a soap box
|
|
|
|
|
A RADICAL threat to freedom of expression, smuggled into Constitution draft revisions, has seen University of the Philippines law professor Raul Pangalangan hitting the alarm buttons.
We’ve all been engrossed with the brawl over the no-elections proposal by the Constitutional Consultative Commission. Chairman Jose Abueva and 18 others voted No-El as a no-brainer. But they were smothered by 22 votes for a proposal that won’t fly. In this brawl, many of us overlooked this charter sleight-of-hand.
It swirls around one seemingly-harmless word: “responsible” In his January 6 Inquirer column, Pangalangan says, “responsible” would be wedged into the freedom-of-speech provision in the Bill of Rights.
No law shall be passed abridging the exercise of freedom of speech or of the press, That’s how our Founding Fathers phrased this bedrock for liberty in our 1935 Constitution.
This is anchored to the US Constitution’s First Amendment. Over the years, it prohibited curbs on freedom of worship, speech and the press, as well as peaceful assembly seeking redress of grievances.
In all our subsequent charters, that shield was grafted en toto. In practice, the dictator Ferdinand Marcos shredded that right. But he maintained the provision in his sham constitution as a legal fig leaf.
This law has stood the test of time. “If it ain’t broke, don’t fix it,” the old sages tell us. But what’s wrong with calling for responsible speech or press?, Commissioner Sergio Apostol huffed on an ANC tv interview. The clause was just “hortatory,” in Apostol’s own words. It was a beneficent appeal to media practitioners: behave themselves.
Really? Apostol confuses his role of constitutional drafter with that of street-corner preacher. And since when did the constitution become a soap box?
“Experience should teach us to most on our guard to protect our liberties when the government’s purposes are most beneficent,” US Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis once wrote.
Adding the word “responsible” may seem like an innocent admonition, Pangalagan writes. Verbal superfluity is tolerable in a grade-school parents-teachers meeting or political rally But when tacked on to a constitution, let alone the Bill of Rights, verbosity can wreck havoc. “Settled rules of constitutional exegesis” affirm that every word, every clause must be given effect.
“There are absolutes in the Bill of Rights,” Justice Hugo Black pointed out. “They were put there on purpose by men who knew what words meant and meant their prohibitions were absolute.”
Words take a life of their own when they’re embedded into a Constitution and left for the courts to interpret. Unintended results can spin off, Pangalanan warns. “The real danger is what meanings history will beckon”.
Recent history shows the devastating mischief that erupted when the Marcos dictatorship imposed its criteria for “responsible” journalism” beyond the spartan prohibitions set by the Constitution.
“An entire generation has grown up not knowing...the atmosphere of fear, of conditioned obedience, which weighed heavily on people” under martial law, Inquirer’s Manuel Quezon writes.
Thus, few recall that three days after Marcos clamped on martial law, arrested journalists and padlocked media, the regime issued Department of Public Information Order No. 1.
Signed by then Information Minister Francisco Tatad, it set objectives for “responsible” media : “to print and broadcast accurate, objective, straight news reports of positive national value, consistent with the efforts of government, to meet the dangers and threats that occasioned proclamation of martial law and the efforts to achieve a ‘new society’.”
It’s eight explicit “thou shalt nots” banned material that “undermined faith in government” to “materials that foment opinions contrary to law.” Among the unwritten bans: “thou shalt not criticize the President, First Lady, family and relatives, e.g. Benjamin “Kokoy” Romualdez.
In the name of “responsible journalism”, Marcos men assumed, unto themselves, the power to anoint journalists. “Lorenzo J. Cruz, assistant secretary of information, said that the Times-Journal staff had been investigated, found to be respectable journalists’, ( and therefore) could be counted on, notes Cornell University’s book, “Marcos and Martial Law in the Philippines”.
Such practices may warm the cockles of people who share Commissioner Apostol’s propensities to clamp on “responsibility” by constitutional fiat. But it does violence to liberty of the press.
“Governments may not force a newspaper to print copy which, in it’s journalistic discretion, it chooses to leave on the newsroom floor,” Justice Byron White once wrote. That is the same principle that underpins the local press objection to bills that compel, by law, the right of reply.
This proposed sell out of free expression will trigger an inevitable firestorm. Apostol and friends haven’t seen anything yet.
E-mail:juan_mercado@paci-fic.net.ph
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why it’s agood idea to have an attorney for your interview or hearing
|
|
|
|
(PART 1)
MANY people had relative petitions filed for them by family members (such as spouse, parent, brother, sister, etc.). After waiting anxiously for several years (sometimes over a decade), the priority date finally becomes current, and they are called by USCIS for their adjustment of status interview. They may think to themselves that because they filed the petition on their own, they can handle the interview themselves and save money, by not having an attorney with them for their adjustment of status interview.
However, filing a petition and getting it approved is relatively simple, compared to an in-person interview. After all, with a petition, you fill out the form, include supporting documentation, and mail it away to the USCIS. You then receive an Approval Notice from the USCIS in the mail, without ever seeing any Immigration Officer in person.
An adjustment of status interview puts you in an entirely different situation. This may now be the first time that you come face-to-face with an Immigration Officer. At your interview, you may be questioned in detail about your case or petition.
This could include the facts about how you entered the U.S. (i.e. under a different name or date of birth), what you have been doing in the U.S. all these years (i.e. have you been working without authorization?), whether you ever applied for any other immigration benefit during that time (i.e. Political Asylum, CSS/LULAC, etc.)
The documents that you submitted when you first filed the petition, as well as the documents you bring to the interview, will be examined carefully by the Immigration Officer, who is highly trained to spot and detect fraudulent documents, such as fake birth certificates, employment letters, tax returns, etc.
Although Officers conducting interviews are courteous, professional, and fair, you could really mess up your case if you don’t bring the proper or complete documentation, don’t provide correct information, start contradicting yourself, start giving evasive answers because you’re confused, tired, or scared.
Even if you’re “innocent”, it may look like you are trying to hide something or you are lying (even when you’re telling the truth). This could create suspicion in the mind of the Officer. So, even though you may be legitimately entitled to the immigration benefit being sought, you could find yourself being put under investigation, or even having your case denied.
A lot of times people think to themselves, “I’ll just go to the interview by myself, so I can save money, and if things get messed up, then I can always go to an attorney”.
But, if you messed up the case, it makes it all the more difficult and costly (and your case gets delayed), as more time is needed to repair the damage! And you may mess up the case so bad, by saying the wrong things that the case may be beyond repair.
I know some people tell themselves, “If I bring along an attorney, the USCIS may think I have done something wrong, I have something to hide, or I am guilty”.
This is a myth. If you are legitimately entitled to the immigration benefit you are seeking, then having an attorney assist you in preparing your case in advance and accompanying you to the interview, increases the chances of your case being properly analyzed and properly presented to the Immigration Officer. It is not a sign of “guilt”.
There are many good reasons for people to be accompanied by an attorney to an interview or hearing. These reasons become even more critical with the expiration of Section 245(i). Now, there might be no “second chance” for most people, if the petition they waited for so many years is denied. What will they have to fall back on, if this happens?
In a future article, I will discuss some of the reasons why it is a good idea to have an attorney help and represent you.
WEBSITE: www.gurfinkel.com
Four offices to serve you:
LOS ANGELES:
219 North Brand Boulevard, Glendale, California, 91203
Telephone: (818) 543-5800
SAN FRANCISCO:
601 Gateway Boulevard, Suite 460, South San Francisco, CA 94080
Telephone: (650) 827-7888
NEW YORK:
60 East 42nd Street, Suite 2101, New York, NY 10165
Telephone: (212) 808-0300
PHILIPPINES:
Heart Tower, Unit 701, 108 Valero Street, Salcedo Village, Makati, Philippines 1227
Telephone: 894-0258 or 894-0239
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
