|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE PASSION and tension unleashed by the ongoing debate over immigration reform did not spare the Filipino community. From Queens to Manhattan to Jersey City, several Filipino American organizations lined up a series of activities aimed at making the larger community aware of the repercussions of the pending bills in Congress and to demand for a comprehensive, more humane immigration reform bill.
Forums were held, rallies were staged, and petition letters were sent urging local, state and national legislators to support their cause. Advocates from among our community linked up arms with other immigrant groups to express opposition to pending bill in the House of Representatives that makes illegal immigrants criminals, and to press for a bill that would provide a path to legalization for the more than 11 million undocumented immigrants here in the United States.
Last Sunday, April 2, a barrio fiesta atmosphere descended on the small Filipino enclave in Jackson Heights and Woodside along Roosevelt Avenue in Queens. Close to 150 Filipinos and some foreign friends held a kapihan forum and a noise barrage, and marched along the banderitas-festooned streets in the heart of the Filipino business district in the borough. Filipino restaurants in the area expressed solidarity with the Filipino immigrants’ call for legalization, and swift family reunification.
Conspicuously absent in these frenzied activities are the so-called leaders of the community. It is but proper to note that the community’s response to a raging issue is being led by a ragtag group of small not-for-profit and community-based organizations.
Perhaps so-called leaders of the community were too busy preparing for their annual parades and beauty pageants. They may consider campaigning for immigration reforms too lowly for their stature, and not as glamorous as serving in comite de festejos.
These leaders should be reminded that in the event that a harsh immigration bill is passed, there may not be enough Filipinos left here to watch or even participate in parades and pageants.
Now, more than ever, is the time for our so-called community leaders to finally show us that their vow of serving the public is not just a lip service.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No tricks on April fool’s day
|
|
|
|
NEW YORK --- When board members of the Philippine Independence Day Council, Inc. (PIDCI) met on April Fool’s Day last Saturday to discuss the proposed changes of its by-laws, there were no tricks played. After an initial heated discussion, which almost made one member walk out of the meeting, it finally came straight down to a vote.
By a vote of seven members in favor of a motion to table the subject matter against three who were opposed, the proposals of the by-laws committee, chaired by Lolita Compas, were shut down. Joining Compas in the opposition were Sofia Abad, treasurer; and Sevilla Belen Castillo, secretary.
Arnie Rosario abstained from voting; Dr. Emmanuel Pangan, who came in late, was unable to vote and Gani Puertollano, president, could only vote to break a tie. Not in attendance was Dr. Baby Bleza.
A comic and curious part of the process was that board members were only allotted five hours to deliberate and decide on the merits of the proposals. This pales in comparison to some 45 hours which by-laws committee members spent to finalize their recommendations.
And yet, despite a vote to table the proposals, someone was even pleading to discuss “at least one or two proposals,” which only shows a total lack of understanding of the prescribed Robert’s Rules of Order let alone the by-laws of PIDCI.
I have four reasons why the proposals failed to muster a favorable vote.
First, the committee spokesperson or whatever name that person is called now was not convincing enough with the presentation.
Second, the proposals were evidently flawed and horrendous. Third, there was just not enough time to digest and understand these proposals in one sitting, that is, in five hours. I’ve said that before but it’s worth repeating it here until it sinks in.
And finally, those members who voted to table the proposals knew what and how to prioritize the activities of PIDCI. It also showed that they have an understanding of the by-laws. Well, at least, I hope that was the case.
If proposals were approved by the board, perhaps information such as this provided by inside sources that are concerned about PIDCI’s transparency and accountability would have not been made possible.
As you will recall, one or two of the proposals barred board members from speaking their mind out about PIDCI, which may be considered a whistleblower’s “deliberate and malicious dissemination of any information about PIDCI.”
Truth matters and set people free; my sources are keenly aware of this maxim. And truth suppressed or withheld from the public is a legal responsibility that every leader or public official ought to know. Reading accounts from newspapers of people getting indicted or jailed because they lied in the performance of their corporate responsibility are quite familiar in recent days.
But even after a trick could be pulled off on April Fool’s Day, a member immediately suggested that the board should meet today (April 6) to discuss the proposals again. A trick or not, this isn’t just right. And board members need to understand that.
Contrary to what is being peddled around by the same people who want these proposals considered, this is not a requirement imposed by Judge Jane Solomon in her decision. The judge had directed the new board to review challenged memberships. It’s as simple as that. Where in the world does it say that PIDCI has to amend its by-laws?
A community leader from Philadelphia told the president that PIDCI’s priority is the parade, which until now is seemingly not the focus of this year’s administration. In all frankness, I agree with his observation. The group that called themselves the “action team” is self-destructing.
Is it because the president is surrounded by “advisers” who are guided by their self-interests and not the interest of the community? Is it because this is the president’s payback time to those who put him at the helm of the organization?
The president can stop all this waste of time and useless debate on mundane matters by asserting his leadership. He should start reading and understanding the by-laws and enforcing them. He should start listening to reason and act decisively as a true leader should.
The president should just tell the by-laws committee that they need to observe existing by-laws, which for example, says “that notice of special meetings shall be sent to all Board members not less than ten (10) days prior to the scheduled date” [Art. III, Paragraph 8, Section B.] The board met on April fool’s day.
Was there sufficient time to call for another meeting this Thursday?
The trick is for the president to stop all this nonsense about revising the by-laws. First, he needs to devote time for the preparation and execution of plans for independence celebration. No matter how he explains himself to the public and lays blame to newspapers, he still would not be understood. He can do it even without the newspapers. He just needs to be creative and resourceful.
The trick is for the president to state in concrete terms people, dollars and sense needed to complete the task he was elected to perform. And not lay any failure on his part as the result of an action by others. The buck stops at the top; that is why he is called the president.
There may have been no tricks on April Fool’s Day but who knows what happens this Thursday, April 6. Before he loses his face, he should listen to his heart and do what is right.
For after all, April Fool’s Day comes only once.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Arroyo, Thaksin no Siamese Twins?
|
|
|
|
Chicago, ILLINOIS --- At the rate the Philippines and Thailand are making it into the international news lately, it is safe to assume that it is an unwanted publicity they would rather run for cover.
And because both countries have many things in common, I would call these two countries Siamese Twins!
Why? While the Philippines was ruled by tribal lords before European adventurists led by Magellan came for a visit, the country formerly known as Siam has been ruled by a monarchy. When the monarchy was overthrown in 1932, a British-style parliament was put in place, reducing the once absolute monarch into a mere symbolic head of state.
But like the Philippines, which was an ally of the US for a century, Thailand only became an ally of the United States after WW II as it sought the help of the US to fight a homegrown Chinese communism.
Another similarity is that both the Philippines, which has 80 million population, and Thailand, which has 63 million population, played hosts to several US military bases for use by the US at the height of Vietnam War.
And finally, like the Philippine peso, Thailand’s baht has also been pegged to the US dollar.
The Dissimilarities
During WW II, Thailand was an ally of Japan while the Philippines was allied with the US.
Because of the short-term relations between US and Thailand, the US was not able to make an impression on Thai’s parliamentary form of government. While the Philippines patterned its constitution after the US presidential form of government. That is why whenever there is a political crisis in the Philippines, it always looks up to the US for a solution.
Not anymore.
The Philippines should now look up to Thailand for political guidance? But why?
From my perspective, when I was in my teens in the sixties, I remember it was Thailand, which first declared martial law in Asia. A few years later, Marcos would follow suit and would likewise declare martial law in the Philippines.
When Thailand amended its own constitution, an economic crisis in Thailand ensued when it “opened its capital account, removing most restrictions on the inflow and outflow of money.” This economic crisis in 1997 spread in the Philippines and other Asian countries that would drive the world into an economic tailspin.
Miriam’s Not So Novel Idea
Only over the weekend, Sen. Miriam Defensor Santiago proposed that if ever the Philippine adopts a parliamentary system, all candidates running in the parliamentary elections should be holders of four-year college bachelor’s degrees.
At first blush, Santiago’s proposal appears novel and unprecedented because under the US-style Constitution, educational qualification is never required for a candidate running for a national or federal elective position such as presidential, vice presidential, senatorial or congressional.
But lo and behold, a four-year university bachelor’s degree requirement is written into the Thailand constitution! I don’t know if the good senator got her idea from the Thailand constitution. I wonder.
Now, we come to another aspect that is very close to home.
As everyone might not know it, under the Thai Constitution, a candidate for the parliament must divest himself of stocks to avoid conflict of interest.
His Cronies
A week before the 2001 elections, billionaire “CEO” businessman Thaksin Shinawatra concealed his assets in his telecommunications empire by transferring shares to relatives, his chauffeur, maid and others. At one point, two of his domestic servants were among the top 10 shareholders on Thailand’s stock exchange.
Five years and many corruption allegations later and as thousands of protesters demanded Thaksin’s resignation as Prime Minister, an anti-corruption commission indicted Thaksin for hiding assets in 2001 and the court acquitted him by a hairline 8-to-7 decision.
To defuse the protests, Thaksin dissolved the parliament last month and called for a snap election last April 2. But the opposition boycotted the election.
When the results were in, Thaksin was so embarrassed when he amassed a mere 57 percent of the votes even if he was the only candidate in the ballot and so, he announced that he is stepping aside.
If we go by the turn of events in Thailand, it has been now very clear that events in Thailand are harbingers of events to come in the Philippines.
Fraternal Twins
So, even if President Arroyo had survived an impeachment last year from a Philippine Congress dominated by her party on charges she stole her own 2004 elections as borne out by the “Hello Garci” tapes, the Thaksin resignation sends a message to Arroyo that she is not yet totally off the hook. Not to mention the fertilizer fund scam, the Northrail overpricing, the Marcos money diversion, the juetenggate of her relatives and other scandals that entangled her administration.
As Malacanang went on a defensive, saying Arroyo is no Thaksin and therefore Arroyo and Thaksin are not Siamese Twins, I say the two are fraternal twins!
(lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“I OFTEN wonder whether we do not rest our hopes too much upon constitutions, upon laws and upon courts,” Justice Learned Hand said in a 1994 speech. “ These are false hopes, believe me. These are false hopes”.
“Liberty lies in the hearts of men and women,” he went on to say. .”When it dies there, no constitution, no law, no court can save it....While it lies there, it needs no constitution, no law, no court to save it”.
Justice Hand’s address comes to mind because, today, we’re badgered to shred the 1987 Constitution. President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, allies and some civil society groups insist we write a new one, “if stagnation and decay” are to end.
“We have strained the present political system to its final limit,” the President stressed in her State of the Nation address. “It’s time to start the great debate on charter change”.
Congressmen were ecstatic at the prospect of writing a charter closer to their hearts’ desires, specially lifting limits on their terms. But senators rejected being obliterated in a unicameral system. But the average citizen wondered: Wasn’t living the present constitution more important than revising it again?.
Since then, this thrust has morphed into the on-going “people’s initiative”. Gathering signatures to amend the Constitution, the President insisted, reflects “true power of the people.” Shifting to a parliamentary form would ensure a more responsive government to people’s hopes.
In contrast to Justice Hand’s belief, the President says in effect : “These are true hopes, believe me, these are true hopes”. So, what anchors the lady’s hopes?
Look at history. Over the last 200 years, only piece-meal but basic amendments were stitched into the US constitution The First Amendment, for example, safeguarded liberty of expression. The Fifth provided a shield against self-incrimination – copiously availed of by Elections Commissioner Virgilio Garcillano.
The British don’t have a written constitution. They never did. But their unwritten charter extends throughout their realm, albeit shrunken in today’s post-empire era.
In contrast, we painstakingly scribble out our constitutions, from Malolos to Edsa. Often, they’re honored more in breach than in practice. Our transient “leaders” prod us to rewrite them to suit their equally transient plans.
People Power scrap-ped Ferdinand Marcos’ constitution that ensured his perpetual stay in power. Protests in 1997 stopped President Fidel Ramos and allies who pressed for House Resolution 40 and Senate Bill 18. These would allow Congress, as a constituent assembly, to overhaul the charter – and lift the cap on their terms of office. “It’d be like placing bets on Jesus Christ and Judas,” H.L. Mencken once wrote. “But the odds would be in favor of Judas.”
Constitutional experts, like Ateneo’s Joaquin Bernas, have pointed out there’s no enabling law to anchor the current signature campaign. Significantly, the Supreme Court’s information office has reiterated Father Bernas point. Until Congress passes an enabling law, today’s people’s initiative is, as the Thai poverb aptly puts it : “writing on the wind”.
So, where is this “fire in the belly” for constitutional change coming from?
Consider, for example, the “Transitory Provisions” ( Article XX ) in the draft charter that the President, Speaker Jose de Venecia and allies are pushing. Then, we’ll see why this move resembles “setting monkeys loose in a cage full of bananas.”
Section 7 cancels the 2007 election. It allows members of Congress, governors, mayors down to barangay leaders to coast, unelected, to June 30, 2010. Other provisions allow the President to appoint 30 persons to serve in the unelected Parliament.
The Prime Minister is not the head of the party, as in a normal parliamentary system. All powers of the Prime Minister and his cabinet will be subject to the President who will retain her post until 2010.
This is about simians and bananas. This would permit today’s leaders to cling to position, perks and pork. “Power is the ultimate aphrodisiac,” former US secretary of State Henry Kissinger once said.
Unless mindsets change, the same Neanderthals would entrench further injustices using the new system, warns Cardinal Gaudencio Rosales. A constitution enshrines a people’s permanent values and hopes. It should be revised in a setting devoid of political passion. That climate does not exist today.
We should not allow ourselves to be stampeded into accepting a July deadline for completing charter change. Let the Supreme Court first decide the serious legal challenges to people’s initiative and related issues.
Recall meanwhile what Justice Learned Hand counseled: “The spirit of liberty is not the ruthless, the unbridled will. It is not freedom to do as one likes....A society in which men recognize no check upon their freedom soon becomes a society where freedom is the possession of only a savage few, as we have learned to our sorrow.
“The spirit of liberty is not too sure that it is right; ( it ) seeks to understand the minds of other men and women...and weighs their interests alongside its own without bias...
“( It ) is the spirit of Him who ( over ) two thousand years ago, taught mankind the lesson it has never learned but has never quite forgotten: that there may be a kingdom where the least shall be heard and considered, side by side, with the greatest.”
( E-mail : juan_mercado@paci-fic.net.ph )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
When Can A Person Change Employers Without Having To Start Over?
|
|
|
|
Q: Many people have been sponsored for green cards by employers through a process called Labor Certification. Their cases may have been filed years ago, and during the time they were being processed, the aliens may have changed jobs or the employers may have gone out of business. Does a person have to start over again from the beginning, or can a new employer take over the first employer's existing labor certification case?
A: In October 2000, former President Clinton signed into law the American Competitiveness in the 21 st Century Act (AC-21), which allowed, among other things, the alien to change employers if the alien's adjustment of status application (Form I-485) had been filed and remain pending for 180 days (six months) or more, so long as the new job, "is in the same or a similar occupational classification as the job for which the petition was filed."
This "portability" provision means that a person would be able to change employers without starting over as long as the Department of Labor had already "certified" the job (approved the labor certification application), the employer's petition (Form I-140) and the adjustment of status application (Form I-485) had already been filed, and the I-485 remained pending for more than 180 days.
Recently, the USCIS clarified the circumstances under which an alien is able to change employers under AC-21 without having to start all over again. In order to be able to change employers (or have a new employer "take over" the existing case), not only must the adjustment of status application be pending for 180 days or more, but the original employer's I-140 petition must have previously been approved . An alien would not be able to avail of the portability provisions of AC-21, and would not be able to change employers (or have the new employer "take over" the case) if:- The original employer's labor certification is pending with DOL ;
- The original employer's petition was never filed or is still pending with USCIS; or
- The original employer's petition was denied or revoked.
Instead, the new employer would have to file a new case (now under PERM), and the alien would get a new priority date based on the filing date of the new employer's case.
This policy clarification from the USCIS is based on a case from the Administrative Appeals Office (AAO), which denied an alien's request to change employers under AC-21 because the original employer's petition was denied.
In that case, the alien in that case had argued that all that was required under AC-21 was that the adjustment of status application (I-485) remain unadjudicated (or pending) for more than 180 days. There was no requirement that the petition be "approved." The AAO disagreed, ruling that in order for the alien to be able to change employers after 180 days, the original employer's underlying Form I-140 petition must have been approved . The AAO was concerned that aliens would file bogus petitions for fake or fictitious employers or jobs, thinking that once the case was pending for 180 days, the situation could be rectified or corrected through a convenient switch of employers later on.
I know how frustrating it can be for people seeking to obtain a green card and achieve their American Dream. If you think you may be eligible to change employers under AC-21, I would recommend that you seek the advice of a reputable attorney, who can evaluate your case to see if a new employer will be able to take over the existing case or whether you will need to start over. But it is important that you know your rights and what is right, which is why I recommend that people retain a reputable attorney rather than trying to do it on their own.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
