|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
LOST in the euphoria of Manny Pacquiao’s scintillating victory over Mexican boxing legend Erik Morales was another noteworthy feat of a lesser known kababayan.
Three weeks before the PacMan restored our pride as a nation, a 12-year old girl renewed our faith in our innate moral uprightness as a race. Cristina Bugayong, a sixth-grader from Quezon City, returned more than P300,000 in cash and checks that was dropped by a messenger on bike.
The amazing thing about what the young Cristina did was the fact that she and her family lives in cramped shanty, her parents barely able to put food on the table for her and her seven siblings. Her refusal to heed her neighbors’ advice that she should keep the money and share it with them also speaks eloquently of her strong will to stand up for what she believes is right.
What Pacquiao’s victory showed us was that we Filipinos can be world-class, that we can excel in whatever field we put our hearts into. What Bugayong showed us was that we Filipinos can do the right thing despite the temptation, and despite peer pressure.
Both Manny and Cristina showed us character. Pacquiao lost to Morales during their first meeting; but rather than lose heart, he used it as a motivation to work harder. He came back and vanquished his erstwhile conqueror. Bugayong did not use her family’s poverty as an excuse to take the easy way out, and instead showed her moral fortitude by going out of her way to find the owner of the P300,000.
Many of our supposed leaders can learn a thing or two from Manny and Cristina. Those who want glory without paying their dues should learn sacrifice and hard work from Pacquiao. Those who treat public office as their personal coffers should learn decency and propriety from Bugayong. Those who treat public office as vanity and power trips should learn humility from Manny and Cristina.
Still, despite being bombarded everyday with news of abuse of power and mismanagement by our so-called leaders, we hold the strong belief that there are more Manny Pacquiaos and Cristina Bugayongs out there.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A new direction: the proposed PIDCI by-laws
|
|
|
|
NEW YORK --- Reeling from another unexpected judicial challenge that attempts to distract if not derail its work, the Philippine Independence Day Council, Inc. (PIDCI) may be inviting yet another potential “explosive” issue.
This time it’s the proposed amendments to its by-laws. I was able to get a copy of the draft. In general, the proposed amendments are clear, specific and leave no room for interpretation. Previously, the by-laws were open to contentious debate because some of its sections were in conflict with others.
Its overall presentation, however, needs more work. If presented the way it was drafted, it could lead to confusion during the process of approval by the board and ratification by the general membership. As it appears now, it looks like the document was a total overhaul of the original, as certain clauses have been re-numbered or placed elsewhere in the by-laws.
Usually, speaking from my experience in national and international organizations I’ve been involved with, proposed amendments are highlighted in bold letters along with the original clause or clauses (which should be underlined) it seeks to change or replace.
For example, if an original clause was stated: “Article I - Offices,” this should be underlined and the proposed amendment should be presented in bold: “Article I - Name and Offices.” Both the proposal and the old clause should be presented alongside of each other. If a new word, clause or paragraph is being inserted, the entire proposal should be written in bold.
By using such method, anyone can follow with ease both the proposed amendment and the original provision at the same time. It not only provides for a clearer and better understanding of the process but also offers a historical record of the bylaws itself.
But more on the specifics of the draft amendment of the by-laws, which some may find them reasonable and acceptable while others may look at them differently.
Restating the purposes of the organization, as enshrined in its constitution, to remind members of what PIDCI is all about is definitely a sound proposal. In the past, this was overlooked that may have led people to engage in power struggle.
Although it may not be necessary to remind that leaders need to communicate with its membership the vision and mission of the organization as well as their own expectations from its members, it is important to re-emphasize this point.
Next is the proposal, under “Article III - Declaration of Policies and Obligations of Members.” I call this proposal, the “firewall” clause. In computer lingo, a firewall is a system designed to “prevent unauthorized access to or from a private network.” A firewall examines each message and blocks those that do not meet the specified security criteria.”
The intent of the proposal is to avoid frivolous and divisive legal lawsuits since “membership in PIDCI is entirely voluntary and is a means of fostering Filipino and Filipino-American solidarity.”
I find the proposal as reactionary (in light of what has happened in the past) and unnecessary. It should be incumbent upon any leader to commit themselves to the purposes of the organization and to observe his duty of care and duty of loyalty required of him as a board member of a public benefit corporation.
I would rather like to see a proposal that sets the process by which complaints and grievances are addressed by a committee composed of members that are clearly non-partisan and whose decision is final and may not be appealed elsewhere even in courts.
With this proposal, it should be clear to everyone that a mechanism is in place to protect everyone in the highest standards of transparency and accountability.
There is also a need to define what “members in good standing” mean. The phrase could mean anything and could become a contentious issue when problems occur.
[Ed’s Note: Due to space limitation, we will have to continue our discussion on this topic next week.]
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael Ray Aquino: The man who knows too much
|
|
|
|
Chicago, ILLINOIS --- My friend, Salvador “Bubby” Dacer, and his driver, Emmanuel Corbito, can now probably rest in peace.
As the US District Court Judge William H. Walls in Newark, New Jersey denied bail for Michael Ray Aquino Wednesday (Jan. 18). The ruling could lend credence to the findings of the National Bureau of Investigation in the Philippines that Aquino stage-managed the double murder of Dacer and Corbito, five years ago.
Aquino, 39, is facing one count of conspiracy, which carries a maximum prison sentence of five years, and one count of acting as an unregistered agent of a foreign official, which carries a maximum sentence of 10 years.
As I pored over the voluminous 90-page brief filed by the US government before Judge Walls Tuesday, Jan. 17, to oppose the release of Aquino from custody, the brief is a treasure trove of information that could shed light on the motives of the mastermind behind the sensational double murder.
The 26-page resolution filed by State Prosecutor Jovencito R. Zuno before the Regional Trial Court in Manila that paves the way for the inclusion of Mr. Aquino, once a rising star in the Philippine National Police force, in the information for double murder, was very graphic.
Guilt in Flight
Aquino, a trusted officer of the then police General-turned Senator Panfilo Lacson, as well as another police officer, Cesar Mancao, II, stalled what could have been a sensational trial when they fled from the Philippines in June 2001, using an assumed name in going to Hongkong and using a genuine Philippine passport with a US tourist visa in entering the United States from Hongkong in July 2001.
According to the resolution, “their flight all the more supports the established evidence of their collective and individual guilt as conspirators in the Dacer-Corbito double murder.”
According to the testimony of Police Superintendent Glenn Dumlao, it was on the second or third week of January, 1999 when he was assigned by Police Senior Superintendent Michael Ray B. Aquino, then chief of the Operations Division of the Presidential Anti-Organized Crime Task Force (PAOCTF) of the Philippine National Police under General Lacson, to conduct a discreet background investigation of a certain person later identified as Salvador “Bubby” Dacer.
If You Can’t Get In, Bomb It
Dumlao said Aquino gave him Dacer’s business card and told him to withdraw 20,000 pesos from PAOCTF’s finance and logistics division for the assignment. Using an alias “Irwin Chavez,” Dumlao checked in at the Manila Hotel, where Mr. Dacer occupied a two-room office. He was told by Aquino to “surreptitiously” enter the rooms and take whatever documents and to monitor personalities and visitors of Dacer.
Failing to accomplish his mission after two weeks of trying, at one point, Dumlao said, Aquino instructed him to “bomb” the office so as to damage the documents and computers in Dacer’s office. Since Dumlao failed to execute the bombing, his mission grew cold as he was also busy with other “projects.”
Job Okayed by Malacanang?
But in October, 2000, Police Superintendent Cesar Mancao asked Dumlao to accompany him to the office of Aquino. There, Mancao asked Aquino, “Noy, ano ba itong Special Operations na ito?” (Noy, what is this Special Operations”), Aquino answered, “Yang kuwan yan, sir, ... Dacer. Ok na yan sa Malacanang.” (That’s Dacer, sir. That’s already OK with Malacanang.”).
Mancao, then asked Aquino, “Clear na ba ito sa boss natin, kay 71 (referring to Gen. Lacson)?” (“Has this been cleared with 71?”), Aquino then allegedly stated: “Sila na daw ang bahala sa kanya.” (They said they will take it up with him.’)
On Nov. 24, 2000 between 11 a.m. and 11:30 a.m. when Dumlao was talking to Mancao, he received a text message from Aquino, which allegedly read: “Nakuha na si Delia. Paki T.I. mo siya coordinate with 19 (referring to C/Insp. Vivente Arnado). Huwag kang magdala ng taga Bicol.” (They got Delia (Dacer), conduct tactical interrogation and coordinate with 19. Do not bring men from Bicol.) Dacer is from Bicol.
What Did He Discuss with the President?
As instructed by Aquino, Dumlao asked Dacer, who was blindfolded inside a van in Dasmarinas, Cavite, what he discussed with the President, Dacer told him, “Humihingi lang ng advice.” (He just asked me for advice.”) He also asked Dacer about the plans of the political opposition like FVR and Almonte. Dacer answered, “Kaibigan ko ng matagal yang mga yan, kahit sa administrasyon, marami rin akong kaibigan. But I always stay neutral and professional.” (They are my longtime friends. Even in the Administration, I have many friends but I always stay neutral and professional.)
Getting no information from Dacer, Aquino asked Dumlao to “go back to base” and secure “any documents” and deliver them to Aquino. Dumlao then relayed the order to Arnado, who said, “Sige sir, ako na ang bahala dito.” (Alright sir, I’ll take care of things here.)
Court records show that at least 22 men under the command of Aquino, who was using his cellular phone, carried out the abduction of Dacer and Corbito along Zobel Roxas St. in Manila.
Dacer and Corbito were later strangled and their bodies were burned and found in barangay in Buna Lejos, Indang Cavite.
Forensic pathologists from the University of the Philippines positively identified Dacer and Corbito based among others on “metal dental plates and a ring.”
Send comments to lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
DID you ever scan government payrolls? They remind you of the yarn: “They Fired The Night Watchman”.
Government once had a scrap yard, that story goes. Crammed with garbage, it stood in the middle of nowhere. “We must prevent theft,” officials said. So, they hired a night watchman at P8,000 a month.
“But he lacks instructions,” they said. So, they created a “Planning Department”. Two chaps were hired, at P18,000 a month. One scribbled instructions and the other did time studies.
“We must check if the watchman does his job right”, the mayor insisted. The council hired five and pegged their monthly salaries thus: timekeeper – P22,000; payroll officer – P24,000; legal secretary – P26,000; administrative assistant – P28,000; and administrative officer – P32,000.
“To fund this program for one year will cost P2.1 million.” the officials wailed. “That fractures our budget. We must cut costs.”
So, they fired the night watchman.
“No government voluntarily reduces itself,” the late US President Ronald Reagan once said. “On this earth, a government bureaucracy is the nearest thing to eternal life that we will see.”
This country had, as of 2001, over 1.53 million public sector employees. One out of every five Filipinos, in the labor force then, was a government employee.
In this neck of the woods, government was the single biggest employer. Six out ten were employed by national government; four were at local government level.
An “exploding school population” jacked up, over four years, the number of teachers by 19,421. Education accounts for 56 percent of total civilian government employees. “Magdalo” mutineers notwithstanding, soldiers paychecks add up to only nine percent of payrolls.
Bureaucracy has outpaced population’s surge. Over a 30-year period, ratio of government personnel to population mushroomed : from one civil servant for every 90 Filipinos in 1970 to one government employee for every 50 citizens in 2001. These employees consume 30 centavos out of every tax peso.
“Compared to four other ASEAN countries, the Philippines has the highest wage bill as a percentage of total expenditure,” says Policy Insights. “Conversely, an industrialized country, like the United Kingdom, has fewer public employees relative to its population.”
Every administration, since the 1940s, tried taming the bureaucracy beast under various names : streamlining, reorganization or reengineering. “But the overarching reason for the reform is to reduce the wage bill” , the Senate think tank says. Bloated personnel hires “crowd out resources for vital social services”.
“Personnel services, however, continue to consume a huge chunk of the budget pie”. The World and Asian Development Bank study Decentralization In the Philippines notes that local governments often fracture the 45 percent cap for personnel hire.
This drains maintenance and capital funds. “The number of personnel has grown while the delivery of government services remain dismal. And recent surveys indicate dissatisfaction with government performance.”
“The most terrifying words in the English language,” the late President Reagan once claimed, were: “We’re from the government and are here to help you.”
Consider President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo’s , Executive Order No. 366,. This is not “merely an effort to reduce the wage bill but also develop, in the long run, an efficient bureaucracy”, the Senate study says.
Size alone and its impact on salary allocations are not the only criteria. EO 366I asks all agencies to submit rationalization plans. “Lean and mean” is equally important. Aside from size, skills, incentives and accountability, in a civil service, triggers economic breakthroughs.
President Arroyo’s troubles may also favor keel-hauling a bloated inept bureaucracy. The much publicized budget deficit and fiscal crisis made the public aware of the overarching reason for reforms” it notes. “Excesses of some government corporations turned the public off and may lead them to support efforts to reform.”
Without waiting for Congress, the President abolished 102 agencies under Malacanang. She transferred 23 other agencies to other departments. Unlike past programs, the President offers, in its Voluntary Retirement System, a “golden handshake”.
This is an average benefit close to one million pesos per employee who retires early – a project that has a US$300-million World Bank loan.
But it’s impact may be sapped by the “The Revolving Door Syndrome” a term for the practice of rehiring people who’ve pocketed the severance “golden handshake”.
EO No 366 has other major components : from consolidation of information systems to curbing wildfire creation of new agencies. It’s only “a first step towards a long process of a complete public sector reform”.
It’d be a pity if, in today’s political infighting, curbing bureaucracy stagnates. Then we’d have to retell the yarn of how : “They Fired The Night Watchman”.
(E-mail:juan_mercado@paci-fic.net.ph )
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Immigration judges told to treat aliens “with courtesy and respect”
|
|
|
|
RESPONDING to complaints of “abusive conduct”, Attorney General Alberto Gonzales sent a memo to immigration judges and the Board of Immigration Appeals, expressing his concern about reports of immigration judges who failed to treat aliens appearing before them with “appropriate respect and consideration”.
(The Attorney General is the head of the Justice Department, which oversees immigration judges and the BIA in connection with deportation/removal cases)
Attorney General Gonzales was also concerned over the “quality of work” of immigration judges, in the way that they handle and decide cases. While he believes that most immigration judges are competent and professional, there are still some immigration judges, “whose conduct can aptly be described as intemperate [excessive in behavior] or even abusive and whose work must improve.”
The Attorney General has decided to undertake a comprehensive review of immigration courts, which would include the quality of immigration judges’ work, as well as the manner in which it is performed. The study (or review) will encompass both the Immigration Courts and the BIA. Once the study is completed, he will decide what changes or reforms should be made to improve the quality of judges and their work.
The Attorney General reminded immigration judges that for aliens who appear before them, the immigration judges, “are the face of American justice”. Although some aliens may not be entitled to the relief they are seeking, and may even be ordered deported or removed, the Attorney General insists that each and every alien be treated with courtesy and respect. “Anything less would demean the office that you hold and the Department in which you serve.”
For many aliens, deportation/removal proceedings could possibly be their “last stop”, or end of their “American dream”. While going to court is terrifying in and of itself, it is worse if the immigration judge is mean, rude, abusive, or disrespectful.
While this memo does not solve all problems, nor does it grant relief for people in deportation/removal, at least it is a very positive sign, that the Attorney General is sensitive to the harsh consequences of deportation/removal, and concerned on how immigration courts are handling their cases, and insisting that they be courteous and respectful. Perhaps now, the judges will be less harsh in their decisions, which could provide at least some hope to aliens.
If you are facing deportation / removal, the stakes are so high. It is not something that you should handle on your own. You should seek the advice of a reputable attorney, who can evaluate your situation, see if there is possible hope or chances for you to remain in America, set forth the various forms of relief that may be available, and represent you in court, and properly present your case.
Remember, if you went to an immigration consultant, they are not able to represent you in court.
That is why it is so important that you seek the advice of a reputable attorney, who can advise you on legitimate ways to legalize your status, so that you will not resort to schemes and scams.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
