|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TWENTY years ago this week, the Filipino nation rose as one and braved bullets and stopped tanks to topple the 21-year dictatorship of the late unlamented President Marcos.
Two decades after that historic People Power Revolution ended a corrupt and despotic regime, there are rumblings anew of attempts to boot out the sitting President.
Indeed. singer-songwriter Paul Simon’s line in one of his signature songs best describes what has transpired in our homeland in that span of time: “After changes upon changes, we are more or less the same.”
When we ran Marcos out, we thought we have ended corruption, economic mismanagement and repression. Today, corruption in government has grown to a much grander scale. Five years at Malacañang and the Arroyo government still has to present a workable economic program to lift the country from the rut. Under the Arroyo regime, journalists and members of the political opposition are falling by the wayside with an impunity unheard of even during the martial law years. About 90 percent of the population are as poor as ever.
Because nothing much has changed, there are those that have begun to dismiss the EDSA Revolution of 1986 as a failed experiment, an exercise in futility. Panning over the wasted landscape dotted with images of poverty on one hand, and abuse of power on the other, one can’t help but blurt out in exasperation: “Did we really go to EDSA for this?”
But falling into this mindset is like blaming EDSA for our shortcoming as a people. The EDSA Revolution is not a failure; we as a people are. We failed EDSA. We failed to live up to the spirit of the February Revolution.
EDSA was a shining moment in our history when we as a people collectively showed what we can do if we adhere to a set of ideals and work together to make that vision a reality.
We were good at ending a bad chapter in our history, but we fell short on beginning a new era for the nation. We were good at destroying unjust structures, but did not follow it up with building the foundation of a better society.
Twenty years later, the question that we should ask ourselves is that: Is it too late to start over? Perhaps a national soul-searching is in order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Different strokes for different folks
|
|
|
|
NEW YORK --- According to human behaviorists, people react to different stimuli. In layman’s term that is what they refer to as different strokes for different folks.
What may work for one may not apply for somebody else.
Leaders have to know who, when, and how to use such skill to his followers. That is not only true for a corporate environment but also for community organizations.
When a leader imposes a leadership style to a group that is totally opposite to his methods, confusion happens and if anything is achieved, it is a result of someone, much more capable than the leader, taking charge.
You must have heard of that famous line, which says: Kahiyahan na ito, ituloy na lang natin (this is an embarrassment, let’s just do it and move on.)
Hence, a faction takes over and runs the show without so much input from its elected president or chairman or whatever title you call the leader.
Or worst, on the extreme side, a faction simply refuses to cooperate and collaborate, questioning every action or inaction, deviously plotting schemes and pompously asserting: “Tignan natin kung may magagawa pa sila ngayong mabaho na sila sa mata ng publiko (Now that their public reputation is questionable, let’s see if they could do anything more.)
Whether leaders articulate a personal philosophy or not, their behavior surely expresses a personal set of values and beliefs. This holds true for people in business or community organizations.
The way leaders build and hold their relationships, the physical settings they produce, the products and services their organizations provide, the way in which they communicate – all of these things reveal who they are.
Leadership does not stop at words. Leaders must act, and they do so only in the context of their beliefs.Without action or principles, no one can become a leader.Perhaps as many of us have heard of the cliché: “Leadership is not position but action.”
I enjoy photography and it’s been my hobby since high school. I like to use a variety of lenses which allows me to shoot pictures that produce different results. I like to look at the pictures and try to see how best I could improve them using another lens.
Leaders are like photographers. They need to have a critical eye and the ability to look through a variety of lenses. They need to look through the lens of a follower; the lens of hard experience and failure; and the lens of unfairness and compassion.
Questions must be asked: What will be needed by the next generations? When will leaders stop being in a testy mood and move on with the objective of the organization?
What does it mean to modulate individual rights with the common good? Are they ready to make a commitment to civility and inclusiveness?
An organization works well if everyone understood the need for everybody to perform as individuals and as a group; the absolute dependence of the leader on the members of the group; and the need of the leader for the followers to implement their respective roles.
Leaders know that they have the opportunity to draw the best out of the members of his group. Certainly, they need to know where they stand.But the question is: How do leaders stand? A sound philosophy isn’t enough; they all need to connect voice and touch.In my ROTC days, the ten commandments were summarized in three words: obey, obey and obey.
However, for community leaders, the commandment is communication. Leaders should have the ability, recalling the words of that famous advertisement: Reach out and touch someone.”
By constantly articulating an idea, a personal belief or values to his followers, a leader can actually harness the talents of everyone and make things happen with less contentious debate.
We may or may not know the motivation why people vie for an office in a community organization.While some of them say they do this to serve the community, others are simply out there for fame, glory and influence.
The difference between the faithful, committed leader and the pretentious one is integrity. Integrity in all things precedes all else.The open demonstration of integrity is essential; followers must be wholeheartedly convinced of their leaders’ integrity.
For leaders who live a public life, perceptions become a fact of life. Leaders understand the profound difference between gestures and commitment. It’s just impossible to be a “closet leader.”
Next to integrity is accountability. This demands transparency in everything, especially in organizations which derive their funding from the public.
Not only are the financial statements disclosed promptly to the public but also the process by which decisions are reached as reflected in the official minutes of their meetings.
One becomes a leader through doing the work of a leader. It’s often difficult and painful and sometimes even unrewarding, and it’s work.There are also times of joy in the work of leadership, and doing the work of a leader is necessary in our community.
But first, a community leader must be equipped with the essentials of leadership. And of these essentials is an understanding how different strokes for different folks work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Recision Act, 1946: 60 years of insult
|
|
|
|
“SERVICE in military forces of Commonwealth of the Philippines while such forces were in the service of armed forces of the United States shall not be deemed service in forces of the United States for the purpose of conferring rights, privileges, or benefits by reason of such service except existing National Service Life Insurance contracts, benefits on account of service connected disability or death.”
-- First Supplemental Recision Act, 1946
ON FEBRUARY 18, 1946 – 60 years ago this week – only a few months after Liberation, this oxymoronic provision in the First Supplemental Recision Act, 1946 – Public Law 301 – 79th Congress – was approved by the US Congress.
This provision broke the hearts of 120,000 members of the Filipino veterans and their survivors, who were hoping for a full dollar-to-dollar “backpay” for their services in World War II that was promised to them by Gen. Douglas MacArthur and Commonwealth President Quezon.
It now forms part of the current law – Title 38 of US Code, Sec. 107.
This section provides benefit payment for Filipino soldier at the rate of one Philippine peso for every dollar. In 1946, the value of a US dollar was two Philippine pesos. Today, a US dollar is 51.60 pesos. On Sept. 19, 1966, four days after President Marcos addressed the joint session of the US Congress and the US Senate, Rep. Olin “Tiger” E. Teague of Texas, chairman of the committee on Veterans’ Affairs, delivered an impassioned sponsorship speech before the Congress for H. R. 16557, which, among others, would “amend Title 38 of the US Code to provide that certain payments under that title shall be made at a rate in Philippine pesos as equivalent to $0.50 for each dollar.”
Different Financial Conditions
“Because of the different financial and economic conditions existing in the United States and in the Philippines, it was considered justified in 1946 to authorize payment of monetary benefits in Philippine pesos rather than in U.S. dollars.” Teague, a big fan of Marcos, said.
As Teague spoke, the rate of exchange was 3.91 pesos to 1 dollar, reducing further the benefit that the Filipino soldiers to 25 cents to a dollar. Fortunately, the US Congress saw the light of day and fixed the payment at 50 cents to a dollar. Otherwise, it would have been .019 cents to a dollar at today’s exchange rate.
Teague said “a peso in the Philippines will go as far as a dollar in the United States.” The bill, which eventually passed, would cost the Veterans’ Administration $12.5 million in 1967. This amount will be diminishing for every year as Filipino soldiers “die out.” By the end of fiscal year 2000, it will eventually costs $276.7-M.
The program will end in the year 2060, which will have an overall cost of $338.7 million. This is assuming that Filipino soldiers will reach an average of 140 years old!
For his part, Rep. John P. Saylor (R-Pa.) told Congress, “Mr. Speaker, if there was ever any bill that has come before Congress in which they tried to correct an injustice, it is this bill. But unfortunately, the administration is only willing to make half a correction.... The question is whether or not veterans’ benefits are given to the men and women who served in the Armed Forces of the United States on the basis of their services, or on their place of residence after service. If the benefit is based on military service, then these Filipino veterans are entitled to full benefits.”
66 Countries Get Them in Dollar
Saylor continued: “That is the rule in 66 countries around the world ... (where) men and women who served in the Armed Forces of the United States are sent checks on the first of every month by the Veterans’ Administration in dollars. But if you happen to be a poor veteran who served with the Army, the Navy, or the Air Force of the United States and you live in the Philippines, the Veterans’ Administration’s rules and regulation do not apply to you.
“It is not a case of what a peso will buy or a dollar will buy in the form of pesos in the Philippines.
“Does anyone ask how much it will buy anywhere in North Africa, Canada, Mexico, South America, or anywhere else? The Australians who fought with us get paid in dollars. Why not the Filipinos?”
“Do not forget that when this (World War II) happened, it was not (yet) the independent Republic of the Philippines.... the Philippine Commonwealth was (still) a territory of the United States of America.”
Rev. Prisco E. Entines, a son of World War II veteran who died in combat and a Catholic priest, who provided this columnist leads to US Congressional records on Filipino veterans issues, had already lost in a class action suit he filed on behalf of Filipino veterans before the US Federal Claims Court in 1996 due to “Statute of Limitation.” But he has not yet given up the fight.
Legal Fund Raising
He is raising legal funds to pay for a lawyer, who can prove before a jury trial, that the Recision Act of 1946 violated the 5th Amendment when the US government shortchanged the Filipino veterans by half a dollar for their war services and the 14th Amendment when the US government discriminated against the Filipino veterans, who were considered US nationals when President Roosevelt conscripted them to take up arms against the Japanese invaders.
Father Entines can be reached at Tel. numbers 213.255.1872 and 323.527.2071 or Fax No. 323.669.7587 or email address: frentines@hotmail.com.
(lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
No? It’s a professional hazard that journalists face. Leafing through scientific papers, legal tracts or audit tables often cause “mine-eyes-glaze-over” (mego) disorders.
Transparency is not the strong suit of many public officials, despite the Constitution’s provision on the citizen’s right to information. So, the press must run the “mego” gauntlet.
.Dense technical jargon characterizes Commission on Audit (COA) reports. That infects even its website. “Some of my best friends are auditors. But I would not want my daughter to marry one,” a grizzled editor said after plowing through COA reports.
Would the agency perform its watchdog role better if auditors were drilled in Reporting 101? It’s the ordinary taxpayer that the COA is ultimately responsible to.
Still, the money trail is there, buried under auditing argot. Scan through the two-volume Annual Financial Report on National Government. It tosses up questions for probing.
Item: Amount due national government from government-owned or -controlled corporations came to P338.5 billion! (This accumulation of subsidized white elephants constitute the fiscal crisis right there.)
Item: Unliquidated cash advances topped P3.31 billion. “Comelec [Commission on Elections] reported the highest unliquidated cash advances for the year at P1.6 billion” ( So, does that flush poll modernization down the tube?)
Item: “Outstanding long-term debt” by the end of 2004 posted “an enormous increase of P384.7 billion ... Aggregate debt stock with long-term maturities reached P3,706.3 billion.” That’s a hefty increase of 11 percent-plus over the previous year’s level of P3,321.6 billion. (Can anyone tell us how much our grandchildren will pay?)
Or leaf through the Annual Report on Local Governments. It contains data on how provinces, cities and towns raise -- and spend -- the tax peso. And local governments affect citizens most in their daily lives. In the overall, local government units (LGUs) in 2004 clamped on austerity measures. Thus, expenses resulted in only a fractional increase (2.2 percent).
But internally, LGUs show little appetite for change from practices flayed earlier, like splurging on personnel services and fracturing the 45-percent cap.
In 2002, the COA reported that salaries chewed up P71.1 billion. This increased to P72.2 billion, says the COA 2004 report.
The three provinces that toted up the highest salary bills were (in millions): Pangasinan, P517.3; Laguna, P450.7; and Quezon, P483.5.
The “billionaire” cities were: Manila, P2.12 billion; Makati, P1.58 billion; and Quezon, P1.21 billion. The top three among towns were: San Juan, P180.5 million; Cabuyao, Laguna, P148.9 million; and Imus, Cavite, P138 million.
Was it Ernest Hemingway who once scoffed: “The rich are unlike the poor. The rich have more money?” The COA has a list of 10 “top spenders.” Does anyone note the lowest spenders?
The three towns that spent just a fraction more than P12 million a year were: Mahatao, Batanes; Bucloc, Abra, and San Vicente, Northern Samar.
In contrast, the three top spending towns were: San Juan, P461 million; Cabuyao, Laguna, P337 million; and Biñan, Laguna, P304 million.
There are “pauper” provinces that had budgets just above P100 million: Camiguin, P132 million; Siquijor, P119 million; and Batanes, P106 million. The “princes” among provinces were: Bulacan, P1.13 billion; Negros Occidental, P1.01 billion; and Laguna, P975 million.
“If you have money, even the spirits will turn the mills for you,” the Chinese say. And the COA says these are the top three provinces with the most assets: Cebu, P1.25 billion (it also has P1 billion stashed in the bank ); Zamboanga del Norte, P942 million (with P872 also in bank deposits); and Negros Occidental, P899 million.
In this liquidity race, among cities, Manila drops to fourth place. The top three are Quezon, P3.44 billion; Pasig, P2.39 billion; and Makati, P2.01 billion.
“Our job is to tell people the things they don’t know,” Carol Marin of CBS once said. “Our task is to tell people things they can’t ask in a survey.”
And this must be done despite the mego syndrome.
E-mail: juan_mercado@paci-fic.net.ph
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Aliens have the right to clear their name of fraud
|
|
|
|
IN A recent case, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal (which is one level below the U.S. Supreme Court) ruled that a person who commits fraud should not be automatically or conclusively ineligible for a visa.
Instead, the person should be given the opportunity or chance to show that their misrepresentation was not “material”, and/or that they were otherwise entitled to the visa under the “true facts”. If the alien can successfully “rebut the presumption” of “materiality” or ineligibility, then their fraud would not disqualify them from obtaining their immigration benefit,such as a visa or green card.
This case could have far-reaching effects for aliens found to have committed fraud, as it means that if the alien can properly package, document, and present their case, they could possibly overcome their fraud ineligibility.
In that particular case, the alien had married a U.S. citizen, but had falsely represented that he and his wife continued to live together, when in fact, they had been separated for months.The alien was charged with fraud for having “procured a benefit by fraud or by willfully misrepresenting a material fact”. He was then placed in removal proceedings.
Both the immigration judge and the BIA concluded that the alien’s false representations were “material”. (According to the U.S. Supreme Court, “a concealment or misrepresentation is material if it “has a natural tendency to influence or was capable of influencing, the decision of the decision-making body to which it was addressed”.”)
In other words, did the misrepresentation influence the immigration officer into granting a particular immigration benefit?
The Court stated, however, that even if a misrepresentation is considered “material”, an alien should still be given the chance or opportunity to show that he or she did, in fact, meet the statutory qualifications (or was nevertheless entitled to the visa or other immigration benefit), notwithstanding the misrepresentation.
In this particular case, the Court found that the alien’s misrepresentation concerning his living arrangements was “material”.However, he should have been given the opportunity to show that he was nevertheless entitled to the immigration benefit notwithstanding his misrepresentation.
In that particular case, the alien could have still been eligible by demonstrating that his marriage was bona fide, and that even had he disclosed he was living apart, he would have still qualified for the green card.
There are so many other instances or situations where people commit fraud or misrepresentations, such as providing a different name, different date of birth, altered education or experience, and the like.
This recent case provides an opportunity for such aliens to possibly “clear their name”, by demonstrating eligibility for a green card, by showing that they would have nevertheless been entitled to the immigration benefit under the true information, such as their real name, real date of birth, actual work experience, etc.
Even the State Department has standing instructions that if an alien made a misrepresentation in applying for a visa, they should likewise be afforded the opportunity to demonstrate that they were nevertheless eligible for the visa, or had they told the truth, they would have still qualified for the visa:
“Once it has been established that a misrepresentation was made in securing a visa, the burden is on the person making the misrepresentation to establish that the facts support eligibility or that, had the consular officer known the truth, a refusal of a visa could not properly have been made. The consular officer shall be receptive to any further evidence the alien may provide in order to ensure that a proper finding has been made.” (Emphasis added).
That is why it is important that if somebody has been accused of fraud, they should seek the advice of a reputable attorney, who can evaluate the alleged misrepresentation, whether it is considered material, and possibly assist the alien in “rebutting the presumption” of visa ineligibility.
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
