In Delsa's Shoes

That is where former Chief Justice Renato Corona finds himself after yesterday's historic vote of the Senate on his own impeachment trial.

Fair is fair.

(Courtesy of filamnation.com)

Anyone who followed the events yesterday could not have missed that with at least 6 senators, part of their reasons for convicting Corona gained much traction from a decision of the Supreme Court penned in 1997. Delsa Flores was a court interpreter, who was accused of hiding a market stall in her SALN, as well as receiving double compensation.

She was found guilty of concealing vital information in her declared statements and was immediately removed from her posiiton and perpetually barred from holding any public office.

(Read http://sc.judiciary.gov.ph/jurisprudence/1997/may1997/am_p_97_1247.htm for the official Supreme Court decision.)

Delsa and Renato are now on equal footing.

Both were accused of hiding required and vital information from their sworn SALNs.

Both were adjudged guilty.

Both were removed from their posts and barred from ever having any public office.

From all the interviews I've seen of her, she seems relieved, more than anything else. She kept saying that it was good that they applied the same principle in convicting Corona, that if it was good enough to get her out of public service, Corona should be bound by those same standards.

It grates on my nerves when I hear why Corona is being subjected to a "higher" standard. Putting him through the Delsa Flores standard in not "higher", it is a basic requirement: honestly fill up your SALN. (Reminds me of people accusing those who push for gay marriage as trying to enforce "special rights".)

Honesty is one sterling quality of a sterling character.

Why imbue so much power and weight to the position of Chief Justice, if we expect him to just be like everyone else? That if he makes the "bare minimum", that qualifies him to take his now-former post?

Kung sabagay (Anyway), he didn't pass the Delsa Flores standard. Why should we subject him to a higher standard, nga naman?

This would be a good time to amend the SALN as well as the FCDA law. Even though senators believe that they could be harmonized, it would be best if amendments were introduced to both, so that future discussions are not saddled by legal language that is riddled with laxity in interpretation and abundant in ambiguity, allowing the reader to apply the law as he sees it fit to his situation, and more importantly, to escape public accountability.

The amendments should leave no doubt as to what is required of public officials. With exacting verbiage as well as a clear hierarchy of thse laws, to prevent further speculations as to which law would be considered "superior".

It looks like the former Chief Justice got his wish, after all.

Renato Corona has now been officially excused as Chief Justice of the Philippines.

And if they have the same shoe size, they can double their footwear instantly.

Other Places For North Korea's Missile Launch

Why are we always known for these kinds of things? And this time, through no fault of our own.

Our country is once again in the international news as North Korea prepares to launch its missiles towards somewhere near the northeastern region (technically, the waters near there). As of press time, the weather conditions have prevented our Asian neighbor - doing a very un-neighborly thing - to commence the launch, so this might be a good time to list some places where they might want to consider directing their missiles to, all of which are in North Korea!

Better yet, I have pictures!

(None of which are mine, as only 2000 Westerners are allowed in North Korea annually, according to the guidebook Lonely Planet. All these pictures have copyrights and are owned by Lonely Planet/Tony Wheeler/Jane Sweeney. Please see http://www.lonelyplanet.com/north-korea/images for full information.)

My personal pick would be the last picture, since the missile can land in the body of water beside a populated area. That is what they planned to do, but in our body of water near our populated area, yes? This way, you won't get any international sanctions/comments/diplomatic lashings, your people will accept anything North Korean leaders do anyway, and we will pretty much leave you alone to your own (nuclear) devices, since it only affects your country. (I would hate for the house on the topmost picture to be blown up, purely on the basis of aesthetic reasons.)

Kim Jong-Un, let's talk.

A Little Ethical Question

If someone heading an organization is the subject of an investigation, and that organization (anyone and maybe even everyone in it) may be asked questions and be made to render facts as a matter of investigation, is it ethical for the head of that organization to stay in position while the investigation is going on?

I am lead to ask this question because right now, we have two instances of this phenomenon happening right before our eyes like a political telenovela.

The more obvious example would be the impeachment trial of Chief Justice Corona, as it has been going on for weeks.

A more recent addition to this would be the case of PAGCOR chief Cristino Naguiat, Jr., who was recently named as a recipient of "various perks" by Steve Wynn, owner of Wynn Resorts, alleging that Naguiat received hotel accommodations ($6000 a night) and that his wife was also given an expensive designer handbag (which he denied in last night's news telecast), all for the "oiling" of permits for Japanese businessman Kazuo Okada to put up a gaming resort-cum-complex in the country. (Wynn also named former PAGCOR chief Efraim Genuino as accepting gifts from Okada.)

(Photo courtesy of watchpinoytube.com)

(See more here: http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/nation/02/27/12/pagcor-chief-refuses-resign)

While it is nominally seen as Steve Wynn's attempts to protect his own gambling empire's profits (in Macau), Naguiat himself admitted that he did stay in the hotel paid for by Okada, but only because it was "standard industry practice".

Excuse me?


Section 7 (d) of Republic Act No. 6713 clearly states: "Public officials and employees shall not solicit or accept, directly or indirectly, any gift, gratuity, favor, entertainment, loan, or anything of monetary value from any person in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office."

(See entire Republic Act here: http://www.chanrobles.com/republicactno6713.htm)

Let's apply the parts of this Section to Naguiat's case.

Naguiat is a public official. Check. (Appointed, but public.)

He accepted the hotel room stay, and admitted this. Check.

Hotel room costing $6000 is "anything of monetary value". Check.

He was being asked to approve permits for a possible venture of a private businessman, which falls under "in the course of their official duties or in connection with any operation being regulated by, or any transaction which may be affected by the functions of their office." Check.

Mas maliwanag pa sa sikat ng araw na labag sa panukalang ito ang ginawa ni Naguiat. (It is clearer than the rising of the sun that what Naguiat did is exactly what this provision says is not allowed by law.)

For Naguiat to say it is "standard business practice" is something I consider as a flimsy and weak attempt to justify his taking on the hotel room.

For the Congressional Committee on Games and Amusement to say the exact same thing - "standard business practice" - is a sad commentary: Our own lawmakers accept bribery and corrupt practices as a matter of course.

Pres. Aquino would be hard pressed to continue his tuwid na daan (on the straight path) goals, the way he uses it to hit Corona, if he does not apply that same standard to his own appointees. What makes it more imperative is that Naguiat is an old classmate of Aquino, and produces more ethical dilemma.

Which brings us back to the "little" ethical question: Should both Corona and Naguiat stay in their posts - how telling that both are appointed, and both refuse to leave - while they are the subject of investigations?

My own code of ethics says this is highly unethical.

(1) The person in question has to ensure to investigators that he cannot tamper with any evidence that may be used in determining his culpability, which is obviously in his purview and control as the head of the said organization which he heads. To this end, I would also posit that ANY contact (verbal, through telephone, internet, an emissary) with any employee of the said organization should be disallowed/prohibited while the investigation is going on, as a person does not have to be physically present in order to instigate a cover up of any misdeeds, and any and all contact to his files and papers related to the performance of his duties should be suspended.

(2) The continued presence of the accused head of the organization within the organization makes it difficult to extract honest, objective responses from people who may be asked to shed accounts on their knowledge of the person in question. This can fall under the Observer's Paradox in the social sciences - the observation of an event or experiment is affected by the presence of others, especially if their boss falls under "the others". Knowing fully well that their responses may "come back to bite them" should the accused be cleared of the charges, they may opt to provide "safe" answers in order to ensure their own continued existence in the organization whichever way the judgement swings.

My parents had a simpler way of articulating these two points: "Huwag kang gagawa ng anumang bagay na magbibigay duda sa pagkatao mo."

Which really bears repeating for our public officials, especially in the conduct of their duties.

Do not do anything that will cast even a sliver of doubt on your character.

A Letter For Angela Zhang

Dear Angela,

When I heard the news that you, at your young, sprite-filled age of 17, have just created a cancer-killing nanoparticle, a flood, no, a torrent of emotions came rushing in. A heady mixture, for sure, but know one thing: I am in awe of what you have just accomplished.

(Photo courtesy of geek.com)

17 seems like a long time ago, for me, anyway. But what I do remember from my 17 was:

(1) I tried out smoking for the first time, and stayed with it for years.
(2) I was present in my classes only in the physical sense.
(3) I was more excited about the possibilities of a life outside of school.

Years later, I am seeing the same thing repeated in this generation's 17's, in a different context. There seems to be an inordinate obsession with fame, regardless of what one has achieved intellectually, physically, socially. It doesn't matter, as long as you're famous. So you see all the gyrating onscreen, on national television, by kids who should be burying their noses in mounds of textbooks, or teenagers getting into fights just so the "local media" will get a whiff of their "event".

Yes, you may be a genius. (Which means you are in the minority in a statistical sense, and only in that sense.) But beyond that, you have shown me, and everyone else, what single-mindedness, dedication and passion can do, how it can be utilized, and funneled into something that potentially has the chance to change the course of cancer treatment - and humanity - forever. And you're only 17 - I can't imagine what other things you will continue to develop and create over the course of a lifetime that is singularly focused on honing what you have been gifted with.

I salute you, and wish you all the support that is possible to continue doing what you obviously derive great pleasure from. I can't imagine how incessantly proud your parents must be of you - we're not even related and already, I cannot help but feel pride in what you have achieved. Score one for humanity against cancer.

Shine a light, both for our teenagers, and for everyone else in this world. (How apropos that your work is somehow tangent to the world of imaging and optics.)

May you, and your tribe, not just increase, but go forth and multiply.

Sincerely,
The Guy With A Blog


Angela Zhang, 17, has just won $100,000.00, and the Grand Prize in the Individual Category of the Siemens Competition in Math, Science and Technology. The title of her project was "Design of Image-Guided, Photo-thermal Controlled Releasing Multifunctional Nanosystem for the Treatment of Cancer Stem Cells." Let me quote from the article I am drawing this from:


"Her nanoparticle is award-winning due to the fact it has the potential to overcome cancer resistance while offering up the ability to monitor the effects of the treatment in real-time using existing imaging techniques."

To read more about Angela's achievement, click on this link. And be amazed.


http://www.geek.com/articles/geek-cetera/17-year-old-wins-100k-for-creating-cancer-killing-nanoparticle-2011128/

NAIA, When's The Takeoff?

Amidst the controversial ranking that gave us the "evil" side of fame again - notoriety - let me couch this post by saying that I am going by my personal experiences in NAIA (Ninoy Aquino International Airport) in relaying what I am writing.

By now, the news must have spread - it certainly has over Facebook, and I didn't get to catch last night's TV newscast: We have been voted, officially, as having the worst airport in the world. (See http://globalnation.inquirer.net/15661/naia-1-is-rated-worlds-worst-airport)

(Photo courtesy of backpackingphilippines.com)

Let's consider the source of this poll: a site named "The Guide To Sleeping In Airports". (http://www.sleepinginairports.net/) I don't know about you, but I don't normally consider an airport as a "place to sleep". My notion of an airport is a place where people are frantically trying to catch their flight - and given the way most of us are subjected to endless security checks, I don't find it conducive to being relaxed, anyway. So I thought it best to check out their website, and they had this to say about their 2011 poll:

"Certainly there are worse airports than the ones listed below, but there is no use writing about them if our readers aren't going there anyways." (Their entire list of 2011's Worst Airports can be found here: http://www.sleepinginairports.net/worst-airports.htm)

I know, I'm trying to find the silver lining. You may say that this is not a very "scientific" poll, or that it didn't include all airports so it would be "unfair" to say any results here encompass "the world". But it cannot be denied that on a relative basis - with whatever airports were considered for voting and used by travelers on this site - NAIA was considered the worst.

There's no way to sugarcoat around that.

In recent years, I have been traveling all over (locally and internationally), and have had a chance to use all three Terminals. And I will go through them by number, which incidentally is in the order of when they started operations.

Terminal 1 was the airport of my childhood, when my parents took us kids for trips abroad (which was their reward system for getting good grades). There was no Terminal 2 back then. (Let alone the third one.) It always seemed massive to me even then, and somehow, my mom always required us to be "dressed at our best". I always found the signages attractive, green lettering on a black canvas. I thought it looked futuristic.

Fast forward to a few years back: They still had the same signages! I suppose in an age where we are conserving resources, it makes perfect fiscal sense to keep hanging on to things that can be of use. But think of the impression this makes on people arriving to our country for the first time, and I imagine that they would be disoriented, thinking they had landed in some time-warped episode of Star Trek, but in reverse, where time moves backward.

I used the bathroom and the first thing I noticed were the chipped tiles - they always stand out, especially if the tiles are lightly colored. Two of the lights were out, the urinal I used didn't flush, and I felt like a game show contestant trying to guess which faucet actually produced water.

The carpets in the waiting area were showing their age: frayed, discolored in darker hues in many parts, and quite frankly, not very appealing. (It just looked dirty. Take note, I didn't say it was dirty.)

I got to see Terminal 2 once, when I boarded for a local trip to Cebu. I must say it was sparkly clean, and having seen other airports around Asia, the "modern" look seems to be defined as metallic, silvery, polished and soulless. The thing that immediately struck me was that it was smaller compared to the other two terminals, which made sense because, as I understood at the time, only Philippine Airlines planes were allowed in the entire terminal.

And when I use Cebu Pacific, the base is Terminal 3 (where every other local airline operates from). It has the same "modern" feel to it as Terminal 2. From a visual standpoint, it feels wider, which adds more to its "soulless" character. There are spaces there where you feel like no one has ever stepped foot in them. It has a "sparkling" sheen to it, so kudos to the maintenance people. And if you needed to stretch your legs, there are lots of spaces to walk around.

What I find odd in the arrangement is that the international flights are in Terminal 1 - where visitors get their first taste of Manila - which happens to be the oldest and the one with the most problems in terms of "items to update and repair". And since the website that did the poll was a foreign one, I will have to assume that the guests that made the complaints about NAIA had Terminal 1 as their point of comparison. Since all foreign flights are here, I can also assume that it must have the best space to accomodate that aviation volume - which should all the more spur the management to make its' facilities "world-class", as the world's eyes are seeing all of Terminal 1 in its' cheeky, unrefurbished glory.

I've been to Suvarnabhumi Airport (in Bangkok) and Changi Airport (in Singapore), as well as a couple of airports in China. I also saw Noi Bai Airport in Ho Chi Minh a year ago. And if I did not consider Terminal 1 in NAIA, we aren't that far behind, are at par or even surpass some of these airports in terms of modern facilities. I suppose we should take Changi Airport out of this comparison, as that will throw off the curve. But Noi Bai airport was dilapidated in parts, although I noticed that they were repairing areas in stages. (It may have a different feel and look if and when I go back to HCMC.)

The one thing we had  that I noticed was mostly absent in the other airports were the "security checks" that punctuated a lovely stay at any of our airport Terminals. Yes, I know it's "for security reasons", I'm not going to get into that. But you have to admit, that like the many security checks we endure on a daily basis to the bank, the malls, the theater, and even when you're crossing from one building of the same mall to the next, it certainly cuts down on any feel good feelings you may have to be asked to strip, be poked, scrutinized and made to feel like a terrorist. It doesn't help that there is a general perception that the ones conducting the checks don't really know what they should be looking for.

How is it that I am able to ride the subway from say, the Colonial District (where I usually stay when I'm in Singapore) all the way to inside Changi Airport (their Terminal 2, to be exact) without anyone frisking me at all? Not one security check. I confirmed this with Arthur and he, too, doesn't remember being asked what were the contents of his bag.

All those checks may just be an admission that Manila isn't a safe place. Or we're just praning. (paranoid) In any case, US airports have that same scenario, where belts, shoes and other paraphernalia are being placed in a tray, so this isn't an "Only in the Philippines" moment. Travelers, I imagine, would rate that as a negative.

But the worst part: the queues. They seem never ending! You have to pay for this. You have to line up for that. I went through that in college, so maybe I'm a little more tolerant of lines. But when there is a surge of arrivals and there are only 2 people manning counters (and there are more than 10 counters), you wonder why we have an "Airport User's Charge" and a "Departure Tax". (PhP 750.00 and 1,620.00, respectively.)

One time, our flight arrived around 5AM. When everyone got their luggages, we were surprised to find no one manning the immigration counters. That's right, you read right: NO ONE.

People naturally formed into lines (behind the thick yellow line), and when it was about 10 minutes, some Filipinos were just too impatient and went ahead and made a beeline for the exit. (I don't know how they'll explain that on their next trip, where their passports aren't labeled as "Arrived".) One airport official was furiously signaling for help on his two-way radio. If we had a terrorist with us, they would probably have a field day and announce to other terrorists how welcoming we are.

Did I forget to mention the rudeness and the irrational "calls" these officials make? I don't mind then thinking passengers are all potential terrorists - they're democratic that way - but when they look at a Filipina and see her bag is Louis Vuitton, and ask her "Bag mo to? Talaga? Magkano to?" ("Is this really your bag? How much is it?), that is just ridiculous. (I saw this in my trip before the last when we arrived here.)

And another time, we were in a really, really long line. Then an official announced that 2 new counters were opening, so the crowd dispersed into those 2 other lines. After about 10 minutes (and talking through those infernal radios), the same official announces that we all have to join back into the original line. (This was the first time I saw Caucasians getting all red from sheer frustration. Not a pretty sight. Accompanied by disparaging remarks about the ineptitude of the Philippines, which no one dared contradict, given that we were all frustrated.)

This confluence of factors makes it easy to see why we would be on the list of worst airports.

I just didn't think we were the bottom dwellers.

Trivial Pursuits

The recent "debacle" about Ms. Supsup's third runner up finish in the 2011 Ms. Universe pageant seemed like one giant circus to me: online beauty pageant junkies going racist on Ms. Angola for winning, Pinoys blaming Lea Salonga for making it easy for the winner to clinch the crown, Supsup having to defend her answer... I thought we were done with this last week, and yet, I open my online newspaper and the first thing I see is Supsup plastered all over giving a "conference".

What is it about us as a nation that we seem to be enthralled with matters that, frankly, have little to absolutely no importance in our daily lives and how we fare as a nation? Are we really THAT shallow?

I seem to remember P-Noy (President Noynoy Aquino) telling reporters in the not-too-distant past that they desist from asking him about his lovelife (him being the first Bachelor President) because he would like to concentrate on more "important" things.

But the week before the Ms. Universe pageant, you couldn't open your nightly newscast on TV without seeing a clip of P-Noy being asked about a "possible" romance blooming between him and a lady mayor or governor, who happened to be single and in her 30's. (That is a topic for another post, when women of a certain age are being pressured into marrying, because there are few things worse than an unmarried woman in her 30's in this country. RIGHT.)

I would have written it off as the fault of insipid news reporters who had nothing better to do, or ask the President, but the kicker was: it was P-Noy himself who opened the topic. In his speech for whatever official function he was supposed to be conducting, he used the local dialect to "appreciate" the beauty of the women of that particular place, with a "special mention" of the lady executive as a standout - in terms of beauty.

Is this a sampling of something "important"?

I know many of you will think of me as a grouch and a scrooge, for berating P-Noy on this. I can hear the defense now, people saying things like "he was just being carinyoso/malambing" (affectionate). But what worries me is that this overtook the news item: I don't even recall what P-Noy was there in that province for, the reporters took their cue from him and dwelled on the "romance" angle, and it segued right into his former girlfriend Shalani, who also arrived in that place and they crossed paths, prompting reporters to speculate about their relationship status, and even interviewing P-Noy about it.

(Photo courtesy of ofwnow.com)

And now, a week after the Ms. Universe non-win, we have the candidate still splashed over the (online) papers.

What is it, Philippines?

Is there nothing else to talk about?

Why do we persist in focusing on things that are, to put it bluntly, trivial?

Who cares if P-Noy gets a girlfriend or not?

Who cares if Supsup won or not?

I would rather know why until now, more than a year from his election, the promise of charging officials from the past adminstration for alleged fraud, corruption and decption is going at a glacial pace?

I would rather know what the new Department of Tourism head honcho plans to do about the fact that tourist arrivals in this country are a pale shadow of what our other Asian neighbors are receiving, translating to more revenue generation for them and not us?

One look at the TV shows that pervade the idiot box is enough to convince me that we really are a nation that prides in being masters on inutile things: entertainment shows that require you to gyrate lasciviously to get a sum of cash, serial dramas with the same "I've been wronged, I'll have my revenge" plots, or importing more of the same from other Asian or Latin American countries.

What will it take to elevate the Filipino mind and consciousness into a higher level of discourse? How long before we stop being an Asian Tiger cub, if we can even be considered as one at this point in time? Is this another attempt to "laugh our hardships away", the way I hear people defend their anti-RH (Reproductive Health) Bill stance, saying things like "it's OK that we're poor with 9 children and no means to feed or clothe them, as long as we're one big, happy family"?

How much further before we can see that the pursuits we've been so passionate about are sadly, painfully, trivial?

"Justice" By Way Of Alabang And Palawan

More specifically, by way of the 2 "Alabang Boys" and a former Palawan governor, all acquitted or had charges dropped.

(Photo of 2 "Alabang Boys" above courtesy of Inquirer.net/Nino Jesus Orbeta)

What great news to greet everyone.

In the case of the Alabang Boys, they were acquitted because the judge found a "breach in the chain of custody of evidence" - in short, tampered evidence. (Full news story here: http://newsinfo.inquirer.net/48423/2-%e2%80%98alabang-boys%e2%80%99-acquitted) The reactions of the people concerned, like Justice Secretary de Lima, was telling: For her, the verdict was a "surprising development". (Which would belie that she, like others who handled the case, thought this would be of the open-and-shut variety.)

A technicality comes to save the (2 Alabang Boys') day.

In other news, former Palawan governor Joel Reyes has been exonerated by a DOJ (Department of Justice) panel on a complaint filed by Gerry Ortega's wife (Gerry Ortega was a journalist killed in broad daylight in Puerto Princesa), because of "insufficiency of evidence".

What's puzzling is that the shooter surrendered moments after the act had taken place, identified the lookout as well as the others involved in the slaying, and the "head" of the operation pointed to Gov. Reyes as the mastermind behind it all, even going so far as citing where he got paid (500,000 pesos, at the house of the governor's brother, a mayor), and describing where he got the gun and how. (Full details in Solita Monsod's column, read it here: http://opinion.inquirer.net/10729/a-farcical-probe)

Another technicality saves the (former governor's) day.

Is anyone celebrating the fact that "justice" has again won? I'm sure the people accused and their relatives are happy with the outcome. Not me. The reason being, in spite of glaring evidence that the accused where indeed guilty of what they were charged, they still got away scot-free.

All because of legal technicalities.

Is there anyone out there with a suggestion on how we can avoid this insiduous cycle again and again?

My suggestion would be to hire better people to work for government, and as shallow as this may sound, the best way to do this is to increase the salaries of people in public office. If they are paid better than lawyers or investigators in private practice, then they are bound to give good, if not great, attention to their work which will reduce these sorts of "lapses". The added bonus is that they are less likely to respond to bribery invitations if they are already paid well, or at least I would hope so.

More importantly, justice (without quotation marks), in the broader and more moral sense (as opposed to the technical, legal fashion), even though blind, will finally see her way through.

Where do we get the budget for better salaries for public officials? That is another problem for which I cannot give a definitive answer, seeing as how our national budget is lacking as it is.

This is just an eternal Pandora's Box.