|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
Leyte landslide revisited
|
|
|
|
TRAGEDY hit the people of St. Bernard town in Southern Leyte twice.
First came the mudslide that swept away and buried the town and about 1,000 of its people on February 17. The events of February 24, the day the Arroyo government announced it has foiled a coup attempt and a state of emergency, buried the Leyte townsfolk‘s misery from the national limelight and erased them almost totally from the collective memory of the nation barely a week after the deadly mudslide.
Is anybody out there still helping out the hapless victims of the avalanche? The Arroyo government, which has been busily fighting for its political survival since February 24? The military, which seems to have abandoned rescue, recovery and rehabilitation efforts long before the official announcement to launch a coup d’etat to topple the administration of Mrs. Arroyo?
Whatever happened to the fund drives launched by the Philippine Embassy and the various Filipino organizations here in the US? We just hope these noble efforts did not succumb to a state of paralysis brought about by the political developments back home. The coup attempt and the state of emergency appeared to have grounded everything else into a standstill.
Less than a week after the landslide jolted the national consciousness, it’s time to revisit Leyte. It’s time to go back to the site of what is considered as one of the worst landslide tragedies in recent memory. Normally, we don’t say or do this in so short a time. But given the fact that the tragedy has already slipped out of our collective minds, somebody has to remind us.
Organizations involved in rescue and relief efforts swear that the worst time for victims of natural disasters is when the operation is over and the groups helping them have pulled out. The victims are left on their own and with very little resources to rebuild their lives.
We should not let this happen to our fellow Filipinos in Southern Leyte. Let not the political developments of the past week derail us from pushing trough with the noble effort that most of us have started. Let us not lose sight of our desire to be of help to our countrymen, come hell or high water, come coup or state of emergency.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ample time for house-cleaning
|
|
|
|
NEW YORK --- A burst of reaction from several people concerning the proposed amendments to the by-laws of the Philippine Independence Day Council, Inc. has trickled into my e-mail box.
They wrote to express their comments after reading a recent column about the subject and asked where to find a copy of the proposals. I responded that the committee has not finalized its recommendations yet and that discussions are on-going.
I also said that it was the committee's responsibility to disseminate the information to all member-organizations as well as to some concerned individuals who may have some ideas to share. I emphasized that as members and stakeholders in PIDC, they are the ones directly affected by these changes and as such, they have a greater responsibility than the board of directors.
In one of these e-mails was a question: "Whose candidacy (for President) is the by-laws being amended (tailored) for this time?" And it continued to inquire if amending the by-laws was now an "annual PIDCI rite."
The writer has expressed a keen observation which cannot be taken lightly. It raises a pertinent viewpoint given the frequency of by-law changes that have been made since PIDCI became a public-benefit corporation three years ago.
The notion which the writer suggests is worth exploring. After all, perception, as some people say, is reality. And the burden of truth now lies with the current leadership and the committee which is crafting the proposed amendments.
Whether or not there is a tinge of truth to that story which says that two current directors have been locked in to take over the presidency for the next two years is something that people talk about.
Apparently, this plan was hatched sometime ago somewhere in Astoria, Queens, by some people who have agreed to consolidate their efforts. Although the writer did not mention this, I found it easy to connect some information I gathered, which may be the reason why the question was raised.
I have no problem agreeing to a planned succession in office for as long as everyone agrees that it is for the good of the community and the independence commemoration. This may even resolve the politicization of PIDCI and end the hakot mentality which happens every election time.
But first is the issue about the proposed amendments. Although reactions to my column can be summed up into minor and major points, I agree, as suggested in another e-mail. Unlike in the past, this year's proposals must be provided to all member-organizations well ahead of time -- not on the day of the meeting itself.
The ratification of the amendments by the membership is scheduled for March 22. Is there ample time for members to digest these changes and come up with their own ideas? Will members be given ample time to hear the reasons for those proposals? Will PIDCI provide ample time for discussion at the meeting?
Board members must have an open mind and listen to concerns and ideas of their constituents. Otherwise, true to the observation of the writer, it becomes an "annual PIDCI rite" to amend its by-laws.
As you will recall, from day one when its by-laws were established and presented to the community, I have said that the proposed by-laws was full of holes. Three years down the road, changes to it are still being made.
I can think of two reasons: First, PIDCI does not give sufficient time to its members for reflection and discussion. Wittingly or not, it railroads the process. Second, there is lack of involvement by members. But if ample time were provided, would members be involved?
Convincing members to get involved in the business of PIDCI seems to be the annoying and persistent problem. This is a challenge for the leadership to face, which needs immediate attention.
An e-mail entitled, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it," referring to the proposed amendments showed up in my box as well. While I favor giving the president complete authority on selecting the parade grand marshal, the writer was against it.
He argues that since the grand marshal (GM) is the "grand marshal only of the independence parade" and being that "the parade is open to anybody's and everybody's participation, without regard to membership in PIDCI, the grand marshal" should be a community choice.
That is the reason, he says, "why the nomination process is such that it comes from the general membership and the approval, upon recommendation of the GM Search Committee, comes from the (present) 13-member Board of Directors. By numbers alone, this process is 13 times better than the unilateral choice by the President."
That's a valid argument. However, isn't the president elected at large by the community, which then gives him the authority to select a grand marshal, who the president thinks will serve in the best interest of PIDCI, if not the purpose of the parade itself?
Responsibility comes with accountability. If the by-laws allowed the president to do this, it doesn't mean that it's a carte blanche approval of the president's choice. The board members, as members elected by the community, still have to establish selection criteria for this purpose.
On the president-elect proposal, he and I agree on this point. As he said, "there's absolutely no necessity for such a position - not in an organization whose main occupation is to plan and preside over the annual commemoration of Philippine Independence in our area."
I also agree with his argument against automatic resignation proposal that prevents a board member, if he, as a candidate, loses in a presidential race from retaining his seat and continuing to serve as a board member.
If he wins, a provision should categorically state who assumes his board seat for the unexpired term. Obviously, this is not defined in the current by-laws, which became an issue when Gani Puertollano won.
The usual excuse of people when things go wrong is not having ample time to reflect upon the potential consequences of their actions. Haste makes waste, the saying goes. And for PIDCI, it's no different. Now in its fourth year as a corporate entity, it's still making changes - major ones at that.
Whether these changes are becoming an annual PIDCI ritual to tailor to the candidacies of certain individuals is true or not, once and for all, ample time should be provided for a thorough house cleaning of its by-laws.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
GMA: The party gatechasher
|
|
|
|
Chicago, ILLINOIS --- In the early days, whenever the messenger would give the King bad news, like defeat in battles, the King normally orders the killing of the messenger out of frustration.
This knee-jerk reaction of the King is akin to the way Philippine President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo ordered the raid of the Philippine Daily Tribune, Abante and Abante Tonite last week as a way to intimidate and silence them.
When I was in Manila last year, I asked a columnist of the Tribune why his newspaper has always disagreed with the policies of the Arroyo Administration from Day One. The columnist quoted his publisher-editor, Ninez Cacho Olivares, as saying that Arroyo has already the Philippine Daily Inquirer and the Philippine Star in the palm of her hand, there is no more room for The Tribune.
And so it came to pass, that after agonizing in promoting a diversionary tactics to the Philippine opposition, Arroyo signed Proclamation 1017, declaring the Philippines under a State of National Emergency.
1017 Cousin of 1081
Using the Marcosian tactics of rounding up the usual suspects, Proclamation 1017, which I think, is first cousin of Proclamation 1081, intoned: “Whereas, over these past months, elements in the political opposition have conspired with authoritarians of the extreme Left represented by the NDF-CPP-NPA and the extreme Right, represented by military adventurists – the historical enemies of the democratic Philippine State -- who are now in a tactical alliance and engaged in a concerted and systematic conspiracy, over a broad front, to bring down the duly-constituted Government elected in May 2004;
“Now therefore, I, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, President of the Republic of the Philippines and Commander-in-Chief of the Armed Forces of the Philippines, by virtue of the powers vested upon me by Section 18, Article 7 of the Philippine Constitution, which states that: “The President...whenever it becomes necessary,... may call out (the) armed forces to prevent or suppress ... rebellion...,” and in my capacity as their Commander-in-Chief, do hereby command the Armed Forces of the Philippines, to maintain law and order throughout the Philippines, prevent or suppress all forms of lawless violence as well as any act of insurrection or rebellion and to enforce obedience to all the laws and to all decrees, orders and regulations promulgated by me personally or upon my direction; and as provided in Section 17, Article 12 of the Constitution do hereby declare a State of National Emergency.”
Proclamation 1017 Should End Now
Those are big words of naked intimidation of civil liberties but unfortunately hollow in meaning.
That’s why the NPC-Phil. U.S.A., which I head, immediately drafted a resolution at our regular end-of-the-month Saturday meeting last Feb. 25, appealing to Mrs. Arroyo to lift or revoke Proclamation 1017.
Actually, the proclamation was not necessary. She should have danced with the music when revelers were celebrating the overthrow of Marcos 20 years ago that restored freedom back to the Filipinos after almost 20 years of Marcos’ dictatorial rule.
After all, Arroyo was the main and living beneficiary of the Philippine original “People Power” Revolution when it gave birth to the 2001 People Power Revolution that enabled her to ascend to the presidency after a massive demonstration against President Estrada forced him out of his office. Estrada was accused of massive corruption and the multi-million peso jueteng scandals.
“Hello Garci” To Have Continuous Ring To It
Perhaps, realizing that the 20th anniversary of the 1986 People Power Revolution would turn against her, she drew attention away from herself, by banning rallies and crashing the party.
It’s too bad that all these scandals are all her undoing and no amount of repression will drive these stigmas away.
And now that the People Power Fever is over and Mrs. Arroyo survived what could have been People Power III, Mrs. Arroyo should now end Proclamation 1017 because it is “detrimental and damaging the truth that the current situation in the Philippines does not call for a State of National Emergency.”
After her strategy of issuing Proclamation 1017 worked for her survival, she should pat herself on her back for pulling the stunt and ensuring the continuity of her presidency – for now.
lariosa_jos@sbcglobal
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“WE learn from history that we learn nothing from history.” -- George Bernard Shaw
IN THE calibrated attempt to intimidate the press, does the President’s General Order No. 5 farcically repeat the tragedy that was the dictator Ferdinand Marcos’ “Letter of Instruction No. 1”?
Proclamation 1017 declaring a state of emergency only means the President can call on the armed Forces to assist the police to curb lawless violence or rebellion, constitutional scholar Joaquin Bernas, SJ, points out. Nothing more. “It does not authorize her to cross constitutional demarcation lines.”
But “to all appearances, her minions read it as a declaration of war,” Father Bernas notes. “The danger of abuse is significantly enhanced. Now, the iron fist is.... showing behind the mask.”
There have been initial brawls with the media. National Telecommunications Commission officials demanded that TV and radio “refrain from airing statements that incite.” Police raided the opposition’s Daily Tribune. Troops surrounded two TV stations.
Presidential chief of staff Michael Defensor endlessly invokes GO 5 to justify this assault. The police will monitor the press, Philippine National Police (PNP) Director General Arturo Lomibao says. And if we in the media are “guilty” in their view, why, they’d just “take over.” How’s that for a refresher course in Marcosian diktats?
Let’s get a few facts straight. A state of emergency declaration does not suspend the Bill of Rights. Prohibitions against abridging freedom of the press, therefore, remain in force. Thus, government cannot impose prior restraints, send in censors, much less padlock the media.
“There are absolutes in our Bill of Rights,” Justice Hugo Black said. “They were put there on purpose by men who knew what words mean and meant that their prohibitions were absolute.”
That constitutional bedrock is why Sen. Joker Arroyo urged the press to stand firm. Any law or order that fractures constitutionally protected rights “is unenforceable,” he stressed.
But Defensor, Lomibao et al. haven’t learned from the Constitution. Perhaps, history can offer a tutorial?
Lesson One: Suppressing the media is self-defeating.
GO 5 isn’t even a stripped-down version of the dictator’s “Letter of Implementation No. 12.” On Sept. 25, 1972, Information Minister Francisco Tatad signed “Public Information Order No. 1” setting the guidelines.
Among other things, the order banned any editorial, opinion, commentary and materials “that tend to incite or otherwise inflame people ... undermine people’s faith in government ... and thereby thwart efforts to achieve a New Society.”
The result was a press whose “credibility was so low, it became a mere publicity machine and an embarrassing liability of the government,” Sidney Schanberg wrote in The New York Times. “President Marcos himself admitted the press had become too sycophantic and obsequious.”
GO 5 recycles what the President sees as threats. There’s none of LOI 12’s “compulsory unification of the graveyard” provisions. So, how do those clamping on prior restraints or threatening closure justify their “war”?
Lesson Two: “In the long run of history, the censors and inquisitors always lost,” Cebu’s major newspapers said. “The only weapon against bad ideas is a better one.”
In his memoirs “A Guardian of Memory,” the late Armando J. Malay recalls how Japanese censors sat at newsdesks to sift through copy. Few believed the propaganda they published. And underground newspapers, like Free Philippines, thrived.
Lesson Three: Press muzzlers first seek out the weakest link.
Joseph Estrada slapped a P101-million libel suit and a P2-billion tax assessment on the Manila Times after it published a story on his serving as an “unwitting ‘ninong’,” or godfather, to an allegedly graft-laced P450-million power contract. The then Gokongwei-owned paper published a front-page apology. Most of the staff quit.
Encouraged, Estrada next tried to smash the Inquirer. His tool: pressuring advertisers to pull out. This attack is documented in “The Inquirer at 20.” Managing editor Jose Ma. Nolasco titled his article: “Estrada pushed his luck -- and lost it all.”
It’s recommended reading for administration “warriors.” They may learn from history and from the fact that Estrada now is in the slammer.
The Daily Tribune, meanwhile, has been raided. OK. So, the Tribune is not a journalism icon. But people are discerning. The Tribune’s miniscule circulation shows readers perceive it as an opposition megaphone.
But the Charter’s provision against the clipping of press freedom covers all papers: good, lousy or indifferent. In a democratic society, the only permissible form of censorship is the citizen’s refusal to read or listen.
“Government may not force a newspaper to print copy which, in its journalistic discretion, it chooses to leave on the newsroom’s floor,” Supreme Court justice Byron White wrote in 1974. That still holds in 2006.
The journalists that Marcos and Estrada tried to gag were there to report their downfall. That’s Lesson Four. Class dismissed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Consultant Ordered To Pay Millions For Unauthorized Practice Of Law
|
|
|
|
Here's another reason why people should be careful in dealing with or hiring so-called "immigration consultants", rather than licensed attorneys.
According to newspaper accounts, a Texas-based immigration consultant, who charged unsuspecting clients up to $4,000 each, was ordered to pay $10 million in civil penalties and restitution for "misrepresenting her qualifications and authority to provide legal advice and immigration-related services."
Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott, in announcing the judgment against immigration consultant Yolanda Perez, said "This judgment sends a clear signal to unscrupulous immigration [consultants] that these scams will not be tolerated." This should also serve as warning to people to be careful in dealing with these so-called immigration consultants.
The lawsuit filed by the Attorney General alleged that Perez charged clients for unauthorized legal advice, and illegally prepared immigration documents. (Only licensed attorneys can legally offer advice or instructions on preparing forms.) Perez falsely told clients that she was a former employee of the then-Immigration and Naturalization Service INS), and maintained that she was affiliated with churches where she worked. She provided these services for four years under several names, including New Anointing/Nueva Uncion, Perez Immigration and Tax Service, and Greater Houston Family Outreach.
Perez charged each client initial fees of $300 to $400 for help with immigration visas, green cards and work or travel permits. The victims, including one man who paid up to $4,000 to Perez, soon found that they were subject to removal (deportation) from the United States because of errors in their submitted forms, or because they were ineligible for the benefits, in the first place. The man said he trusted Perez because she worked inside a church in Houston.
When a woman client complained that she and her daughter were in danger of being deported after paying the immigration consultant $3,100, Perez merely told her that their best option was to voluntarily leave the US.
For years, immigration authorities have warned aliens to be suspicious of people claiming "quick" solutions to their immigration problems. But thousands still fall victim to these sweet-talking "immigration experts" in their desire to legalize their status in what they thought was the easiest and least inexpensive way. In most cases, however, the unsuspecting clients lose their hard-earned money, their precious time, and worse, end up being deported.
Some people, when given the choice of doing things "right" or "right now", choose the quick fix, even if they are not qualified for the benefit. But there is only one way to legally obtain immigration benefits - by meeting and following all the requirements of the law. And if consultants are breaking the law , how can you expect them to help you follow the law ?
There are no "shortcuts" or quick fixes to legalizing your status in the United States. "Fast" green cards or "sure thing" processing are the first clues to disastrous and costly scams. Just follow the traditional norm to avoid a scam: "When it's too good to be true, it probably isn't true."
If you want to legalize your status in the United States, I suggest you go to a reputable attorney, who can help you evaluate your situation and find legitimate ways to obtain the immigration benefits available to you. Remember, the only way to legalize your status is to do it legally. And only a licensed attorney can offer you legal advice, represent you in court, and "keep your secrets" under the attorney-client communications privilege.
WEBSITE: www.gurfinkel.com
LOS ANGELES:
219 North Brand Boulevard
Glendale, California 91203
Telephone: (818) 543-5800
SAN FRANCISCO:
966 Mission Street
San Francisco, California 94103
Telephone: (415) 538-7800
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
