|
For the past 20 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 Fourth of July is observed in the Philippines as Philippine-American Friendship Day, to commemorate the date when the United States recognized the Republic of the Philippines as a sovereign state. Here in Jersey City, the Filipino American community even holds a parade and a street fair every year to celebrate this special relationship between the two countries.
But like any other relationship, the RP-US ties have gone through a lot of sacrifices and hardships. And before we take this friendship for granted, let us recall how this special relationship started. For it was us, Filipinos, who bore the brunt of these sacrifices and hardships.
This relationship started with a war: the Philippine-American War from 1898 to 1901. During this three-year war, more than 500,000 Filipinos out of a population of eight million were killed. The number of fatalities during this time far outnumbered the number of Filipinos killed during the three hundred years of Spanish colonialism in the Philippines.
This friendship also had to endure duplicity. While publicly proclaiming teaching us the ways of democracy, the US government suppressed all forms of nationalism such as the display of flags and singing of nationalist songs.
This relationship also survived blackmail. Despite pledging undying love and being a faithful friend during World War II, the US government refused to send war reparation money to the Philippines until the Filipino government agrees to sign lopsided economic treaties with the US, and to extend the stay of US military bases in the Philippines for 99 years.
This special tie that binds also went through abandonment. Despite an earlier promise to Filipino soldiers that they will be accorded the same rights and privileges enjoyed by American soldiers if they fight side-by-side with the US against the Japanese in World War II, the US government has yet to fulfill that promise.
We really had to go through a lot to earn the US’ friendship. This fact should not be lost on us Filipinos as we observe 60 years of Filipino-American friendship.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A big push for a big dump
|
|
|
|
PHNOM PENH -- Now that all the work of the Philippine Independence Day Council, Inc. (PIDCI) pertaining to its mandate, some “house-cleaning” or “administration” work have been lined-up. Foremost in a list is the resurrected “by-law” ratification, which failed to muster attendance from organization members in a community meeting on June 15.
In other words, due to a lack of quorum, PIDCI had to postpone it to July 11 and attempt to garner 20 percent of membership or 48 member organizations to attend. In the words of Lolita Compas, chair of the by-laws committee, she encouraged the 14 board members to bring in at least four member-organizations to attend the meeting.
In an e-mail sent on her behalf on June 19, she encouraged all those “running (for office) this coming election, (that) this (is) the time to move and encourage your friends, kababayans, kumpadre and show support to the new bylaws.”
“If we confirmed 4 member org to come,” the e-mail continued, “that will be 56 org.” If the goal was met, this could be a little over the minimum required for a quorum. The logic which Compas presents in her e-mail has some undertones in it that needs understanding and analysis. Her statement is similar to a report she made in one of the community meetings, which I had attended.
At that meeting, if I remember correctly, she cited three reasons for the need to amend the by-laws. First, was to strengthen the structure of the board; second, was to empower the membership, and third, was to protect the organization, its board members and officers from unwanted lawsuits. I believe that was the essence of her report.
Before going further into understanding and analyzing Compas’ big push for attendance on July 11, a review of the process by which the “new by-law” came into being is in order.
As you will recall, on April 1, the board rejected the proposals presented by a supposed committee whose legitimacy including its membership is questionable. Although the president has the authority to constitute a committee, appoint its chair and its members, the board failed “to define its tasks.”
This was because, as a former PIDCI insider correctly observed, “the leadership and certain members of the Board, with the encouragement and collusion from outsiders (so-called advisers, former officers, committee chairs, and non-board members) unduly constituted the by-laws committee, continued to meet and hammer out this document (the “proposed amendments”).
In other words, as another former PIDCI insider notes, “they were lobbying for themselves to be members of the by-laws committee to position their candidates in a much favorable light during election time. This is politics at its best.”
In calling for a board meeting to discuss the proposed amendments, again, the leadership of PIDCI failed to observe its own by-laws. For example, was sufficient notice of the meeting followed? Did it provide board members sufficient time to review the proposed amendments?
One may claim that some people may be acting too technical about this but hey, as leaders they ought to show an example that a “government should be of laws rather than of man.” That’s also the reason why Robert’s Rules of Order is cited in its by-laws as the ultimate source of clarification.
This was the strongest argument why during its initial presentation to the board, the proposed amendments were dumped by a majority of members despite a big push for its swift approval by the by-laws committee. Through a motion made by a board member, the proposed amendments were “tabled” for future consideration.
In parliamentary procedure parlance, this means that another motion is required to “un-table” the previous motion in order for it to be considered for discussion by the board. But as you will recall from a previous column, in spite of the rejection it received, there was an earnest bargaining for consideration to continue discussing the membership proposals.
It was argued that it was important for the board to discuss membership issues to avoid lawsuits. And again as another observer notes, this is a pipe dream. How can a piece of paper ban anybody from filing a lawsuit?
Following Robert’s Rules, which says that once a committee’s work is done and a report was made to the Board, the committee is discharged of further responsibilities. The Board can do anything with its report.
The crucial question now is why did the by-laws committee, which was supposed to have disbanded upon completion of its work, allowed to re-establish itself and continue to work on the proposed amendments? What happened here? Some folks claim this was necessary to maintain the power and influence of a certain faction. Is there any tinge of truth to this?
Faced with a situation similar to that, I was taught to apply the formula OIA, an acronym for observe, interpret and apply. Let’s apply this formula now. First is the observation, which Compas made in her big push for attendance.
Why would she encourage those running for election to call upon their kababayans, kumpadre to show support to the new by-laws? Who was she referring? Isn’t she perpetuating a “hakot” system, which has earned its controversial role in last year’s elections?
Why would she call proposed amendments as “new by-laws? Is she suggesting that these “new by-laws” have the imprimatur of a legitimate, duly constituted committee and board that continue to violate its own rules? In the first place, which version of the by-laws is being observed?
Second, in what way would these “new by-laws” strengthen the board, empower the members and prevent future lawsuits? Would a president-elect post strengthen the board and prevent future lawsuits?
Finally, in what way are members empowered by the “new by-laws?” If time and again, PIDCI has failed to establish a quorum in its community meeting, assembling only 22 member organizations at its last meeting, would the “new by-laws” improve attendance? Isn’t this just a show of political exercise in the making that favors a ruling faction?
And now for the application: Let the community clamor for a big push for a big dump of these proposed amendments.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Covering in hostile environment
|
|
|
|
CHICAGO, Illinois – When businessman and publisher Alex F. Cirera sent around an email on May 28 that he was being “kicked out” of the Rizal Center while covering the FACC Elections for his monthly paper, it was a virtual ‘SOS,” inviting other media members to cover the elections.
As a media member, who had a similar and if not worse experience than Alex when I was covering elections in the Philippines and the FACC elections for the then PhilippineTIME USA (now Fil-Am Weekly Megascene) several elections ago, I was the first one to run into this kind of problem.
What I told Alex was that he may stay outside the Rizal Center for the duration of the elections but take exit interviews from those who had just voted. I also told him to call an emergency number 4-1-1, actually, it should have been 9-1-1, if his life was in danger.
On the other hand, Romy Sager butted in that Romy should rather stay away from the Rizal Center than “take the risk of being handcuffed.”
I now realize that the next time around that Alex would be covering an event, any event, in a hostile environment, he does not really need other media members to come to his aid.
All he needed is a friend of his, who will stick by him, through thick and thin.
Conflict of interest is a loser
In my experience when I covered the FACC elections, when one of those kibitzers in the elections who did not like the news report I wrote about his murder case approached me, I thought he was going to congratulate me for my accurate reporting.
Instead, the murder suspect slapped me in the presence of a fellow newsman, who was and still is publisher-editor of the other Chicago Filipino American weekly paper who was indebted to the murder suspect.
This media person somersaulted and even accused me of lying as he chickened out from testifying in court against the murder suspect I accused of battery. This media person even prodded me to sue the murder suspect when I initially failed to do so.
Translation: a fellow media person is not really in the best position to help his fellow media man if placed in a situation fraught with conflict of interest.
Since that incident, I never cover a place in a hostile environment without a companion, who could be my reliable witness. The manager of Rizal Center, who was not thrilled with my criticism of his nephew, once threatened to lay a hand on me. But all he could do was to make a verbal threat. Reason: I had a companion in my table at the time.
And it works all the time. Nobody could harass me when I am with somebody, who is unknown to my hostile subjects. So, Alex, you may take my cue.
Convoluted FACC elections
Now, let’s come to the convoluted FACC elections.
Under the 1995 Amended FACC Constitution, deadline for filing the candidacy for election is “45 days before the last Sunday of May of the election year.”
I surmise because of the “Filipino time” mentality, candidates for the board of directors, community assembly and the board of trustees procrastinated in their decision for a long time in making up their mind to run for elections, most, if not all of them, missed the deadline for filing their candidacies.
In fact, the FACC Board of Election allowed the inclusion of candidates for the Board of Trustees as scandalously as late as May 26 or two days before the May 28 election.
For this reason, if Alex’s election protest reaches the court, I will not be surprised if the alleged winners of the May 28 elections will not be allowed to hold office.
If the FACC will contest Alex’s protest, it would be unconscionable for the incumbent FACC officials to draw any legal financial assistance from the FACC coffers because the failure of the election was caused by the failure of the FACC leadership. The FACC leadership should not be rewarded with legal assistance for causing the failure.
Failure deserves no reward
The incumbent FACC officers are still mired in another case still pending in court and have already spent a fortune of the money drawn from the FACC savings to pay for the retainer for its lawyers. These monies should have been channeled towards community services, including the maintenance and upkeep of the Rizal Center, food, clothing, medicines, medical and dental equipment victims of disaster and natural calamities, etc.
Who needs a failed leadership?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
‘Drip, trickle and splash’
|
|
|
|
|
AFTER having lain half asleep for a year, the booming voices of that bunch of “speechifyers” hopefully may resound once more at “Kabalen”, new venue of the biweekly meeting of the revived Jersey Toasmasters Club. We wish them the best now that the club is under the leadership of Elizabeth “Bess” Lindo, who will assume the presidency come July lst.
Bess is not exactly a newcomer, having served the club earlier as vice president for education. She is an executive at Prudential Insurance.
Bess has a commanding presence and would inspire especially new members with her crisp fluency in the English language and substantive choice of topics. As a neophyte, we clearly remembered when she said she would like to personally evaluate our early speech projects. That remark challenged us and caused us to drop the “ahs” and “ehs” and assorted speech gap fillers as quickly as we could. Our best wishes to Bess.
We had fun with the club. We regret that commitments outside the US will deprive us of this enjoyment. To savor this past, we print a humorous piece, a toast and a roast to the club out of which we coined a new term, “troast”. With nine other talks, we were awarded the title “Advance Toastmaster”. With apologies to the members who were roasted.
“As an outstanding club, the Jersey Toastmaster is indeed one in a million. In its Area 4-J, District 46, Club 7733 has attained quite a distinction not only in Jersey City, but in the State of New Jersey as well, and perhaps in the entire Northeast.
“Truly, the club has become legendary -- that is, a legend in the minds of its own members. It is star-studded with skilled speech crafters. It is overloaded with veteran communicators. Veteran, by the way in this case, is another euphemism for those who are candidates for the Home. There is never a dull meeting. Its proceedings keep exploding with wit. Jokes in its sessions fly thickly, followed always by resounding applauses. That is, after the speaker says, “I need an applause for that.”
“How can it be not a distinguished club with such members as the following:
“A member whose brilliant leadership both in the club, in the district, and in the area is outshined only by the brilliance of his smooth head. If he sheds a flake of dandruff, by the way, grab it. It’s a collector’s item.
“An outstanding past president and an accomplished broadcast journalist who is also a fast rising leader in our district. He is truly a fantastic speaker. He has told this to me many, many times whenever we meet, the last time three minutes ago.
“A tall, dark and handsome toastmaster, who is destined to be a professional inspirational and motivational speaker when he retires in the Philippines. When I mentioned this to him, he faced his seatmate and went, ‘I am?’. Unlike most people, he applies white dye to his hair to look distinguished and respectable. If he does not do it, he looks 30 years younger. Again, when I mentioned this to him, he went, ‘Do I really?’
“Another handsome member spends three hours primping in front of a mirror before coming to our meeting. He always confronts his audience with a difficult decision on where to concentrate: whether to listen to his always interesting political speech or admire his diamond-studded oversized belt buckle, ultra fashionable wrist watch, smartly designed colorful vest and jacket, and manicured mustache.
“A Filipino Yankee western type complete with wide- brimmed $100 Stetson and custom-made embroidered cowboy boots. He is a powerful speaker with a sexy accent and who, like Charles Bronson, is perhaps a love icon for women who no longer care. His name -- the single letter X -- does not sound like one. It sounds like a dangerous medical prescription.
“With outstanding members and characters such as these who probably really are capable of standing out, who will dare to compete with Jersey Toastmasters? These guys are talented not only in speaking, but also in singing and dancing to the tune of “YMCA”. Indeed, many of them try hard to look ago-go although their go-go’s have long been gone. But really, these guys are good eggs. And you know where eggs come out of.
“Guys and dolls, join me in troasting the one and only Jersey Toastmasters.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
“Troasting” the Jersey Toastmasters
|
|
|
|
|
WITHOUT digging up numbers, we could conclude from our last few visits to Manila that one more business sector has fallen victim to the economic downturn that bedevils the country presently. This is the movie industry.
In addition to reading, we like to pass the time watching movies inside a movie house. Repeat, we said inside a movie theater. At home or in a hotel room, we rarely finish watching a film. We doze off.
In the past year, we noticed the crowds in Makati movie houses keep getting sparse. This is, by the way, nothing new to us. At the Hudson Mall in Jersey City where we go to the movie houses when in the States, we were witness to a similar decreasing patronage. Until it came to a point when we found ourselves as part of a crowd of two or three patrons occupying the theater. And until the complex of about half a dozen cinemas completely shut down. But then, what happened there and what is happening in the Philippines are two different things. At Hudson Mall, it’s bad location.
There are other things we noticed in the Makati movie houses. Earlier, we could enjoy at least a few Hollywood films a week. There were one or two Filipino movies. We could watch one new movie a day, if we wanted to.
Today, in two days we could finish watching the new films during the week. That seemed to be the only movies the movie houses could afford to rent: two. Hardly any Filipino films are shown, even the mushy ones, the “bakya” crowd types, the cheapy, cheapy types which, we believe, are shot and finished in 36 hours, sans any scripts.
So after two days, there’s nothing more to watch. Even if you go around visiting all the theater complexes in the whole Metro Manila.
What has brought this upon the industry? We could hazard a guess, we guess.
Two words starting with the same letter: Poverty and Piracy.
Producers still face the same production cost, which keeps on increasing in tandem with the prices of everything. But fewer patrons are lining up at the till to shell out the more than 100 pesos, the cost of a movie ticket. A mother, moderately well off, told me, “I’ve got a family of six, including myself. If we go to the movie, we spend 700 to 800 pesos, without counting the gas and the food.” How many people can afford that?
Then comes piracy. “You go and buy a pirated copy of a film from 100 to 300 pesos. You can all watch. As many times as you want.”
No wonder the actors and actresses now go to work at the television stations. There you can watch variety show extravaganzas galore and have your fill of legs and more legs. And game shows, too. Some copied from U.S. productions. In many segments, they use maybe fifty talents, many of them no doubt underpaid.
We asked a friend here in Jersey City about a nephew who directs in the Philippines. His total number of productions for the last 12 months was one. Yes, ONE. The nephew now is in Indonesia directing commercials.
The shortage of jobs for the beautiful actresses must be making some people happy, including moneyed businessman and politicos. Some of them learn to sing and join small bands in music lounges. Those with celebrity status are featured in concerts. We enjoy dropping in at these music clubs. Many Filipino entertainers are really great singers. And the comedians are sure to make you forget the poverty blues.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
F-2A children now eligible for CSPA
|
|
|
|
ON June 14, 2006, in a dramatic reversal of policy, the USCIS issued a memo, now allowing children whose petitions were “initially filed” in category F-2A (single, minor children of green card holder parents) to remain in the “faster” F-2B category (single adult child of green card holder parent), if they turned 21 and their parent naturalizes.
This memo reverses the USCIS’s very harsh and restrictive interpretation of section 6 of the Child Status Protection Act (CSPA), where USCIS allowed only sons and daughters whose petitions were “initially filed” when they were over 21 (F-2B) to avail of CSPA section 6, but denied such benefits to children whose petitions were initially filed in the F-2A category, and then converted to F-2B when they turned 21.
By way of background, for Filipinos, it takes many years longer for US citizens to petition their adult single children (category F-1) than it does for green card holders to petition their adult single children (category F-2B).
Many immigrant parents, thinking it would be faster if they naturalized, took the oath of citizenship, only to learn the tragic truth: because they naturalized, their adult single children would now have to wait five or more additional years, than they would if the parent remained a green card holder.
To remedy this situation, in August 2002, Congress passed the Child Status Protection Act, or CSPA. Section 6 of CSPA allows adult single children whose petitioning parent naturalizes to remain in the faster F-2B category.
However, in March, 2004, USCIS came out with a memo, stating that CSPA section 6 opt-out\election would apply only if the petition was “initially filed” as F-2B. However, if the immigrant parent had petitioned his child when the child was under 21 (F-2A), and then the child turned 21, (thereby converting the petition category from F-2A to F-2B), the child would not be eligible under CSPA Section 6 to “elect” to remain in the F-2B category if the petitioner later naturalized. The reasoning was that the petition was not initially filed as F-2B, but instead was initially filed as F-2A.
In its most recent memo, USCIS reversed or amended that narrow and restrictive interpretation. USCIS realized that there would be situations where immigrant parents petitioned both their adult and minor children, and then naturalized. In that situation, it turned out that the adult children would benefit from CSPA section 6, but the minor children (who aged out and later converted to F-2B) would be left behind.
Under this new memo, even if you initially petitioned your child when your child was under 21 (category F-2A), the child then turned 21 (thereby converting the petition to F-2B) and you thereafter naturalized (converting the petition to category F-1, where the waiting is years longer), the child can still take advantage of CSPA section 6 and elect to remain in the faster F-2B category.
If your child’s CSPA section 6 election was denied by USCIS because your petition was not “initially filed” as F-2B, you should seek the advice of a reputable attorney, who could assist you in reversing that denial, and help you bring your child to join you in the US, and end the years of separation.
Michael J. Gurfinkel has been an attorney for over 25 years, and is an active member of the State Bar of California and New York, as well as the American Immigration Lawyers Association and the Immigration Section of the Los Angeles County Bar Association.He has always excelled in school:Valedictorian in High School; Cum Laude at UCLA; and Law Degree Honors and academic scholar at Loyola Law School, which is one of the top law schools in California.
WEBSITE: www.gurfinkel.com
Four offices to serve you:
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
(This is for informational purposes only, and reflects the firm’s opinions and views on general issues. Each case is different and results may depend on the facts of a particular case. All immigration services are provided by an active member of the State Bar of California and/or by a person under the supervision of an active member of the State Bar. No prediction, warranty or guarantee can be made about the results of any case.Should you need or want legal advice, you should consult with and retain counsel of your own choice.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
