|
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 decision both by the Senate and House of Representatives to pass their respective versions of a bill of repealing death penalty is one of the few positive measures that came out from the Philippine legislature in a long time.
In many countries, the belief that death penalty is the best crime deterrent has long been discredited. Proponents of death penalty claim that it is necessary to kill an offender to dissuade other people from committing the same crime. They also argued that killing the offender is the best way to ensure that he will no longer be able to repeat his offense. And lastly, they maintain that certain offenders must be killed because justice demands it.
Studies and experiments, however, do not support the deterrent argument. One of the most recent researches on the relation between death penalty and homicide rates, conducted by the United Nations in 1988, concluded that: “This research has failed to provide scientific proof that executions have a greater deterrent effect that life imprisonment.”
Amnesty International, in its book, “When The State Kills: The Death Penalty Vs. Human Rights,” also cited several studies that tend to disprove the notion that criminals tend to repeat their offenses.
Out of 342 male prisoners paroled in California, between 1945 and 1954 while serving sentences for first degree murders, only one was reconvicted of second degree murder (not punishable by death);
Human rights advocates also assail the eye-for-an- eye concept of justice. By asking for the head of an offender, are we really seeking justice? Or are we just giving in to our lust for vengeance? More often than not, it all boils down to a desire for revenge, masqueraded as a call for justice.
An execution cannot be used to condemn killing: they are one and the same. A state killing a criminal could only mean that the state has been dragged to the murky depths of violence by the criminal. Such an act by the state is nothing but the mirror image of the criminal’s willingness to use physical violence against a victim.
Countries and governments believing in the death penalty are a dying breed. And it’s good to know that the Philippines is not one of them.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Not just a question of competence
|
|
|
|
PHNOM PENH, Cambodia -- One afternoon on a busy day at work, a colleague asked me: “Do you think I am incompetent our boss would belittle me on anything I do for her?”
I was a bit taken aback by her question as she seemed upset with something that was bothering her.
All I knew was that she was having this feeling of resentment against our chief which was continuing to build up each day. And now right after high noon, she was like a powder keg ready to explode anytime. I thought this was the moment.
Earlier that day, she already had a spat with another colleague who was giving her instructions on a project she was requested to do. I sensed she was having a bad day and to keep her spirits high, I quickly responded to her quite emphatically with a grin on my face: “All of us are competent until we reach our level of incompetence.”
There was dead silence. The words just came out of my mouth; I couldn’t even recall if I was merely adding details to a so-called Peter Principle or not, which says -- if memory served me right --that it was time for anyone that has been in a job for quite a long time to move on to another field of endeavor. When mistakes start happening quite often without rhyme or reason, these are telltale signs of concerns.
I thought I offended her but after a long pause as I continued with my work, she smiled back and said: “You’re right. Thank you for your words of encouragement. I never thought about it until now and maybe somebody else is reaching that level of incompetence. I know it’s not me.”
That calmed her down and saved me from losing her friendship. At the same time, a seed was planted in her heart, which I hope she would always be mindful of. You see, as human beings we all have our talents and skills and we are proud of our accomplishments. There is that sense of pride in what we have and in what we can do, which may also lead to something else if pride overcomes us and turns us into becoming arrogant and spiteful.
What was said to her was neither a rejection nor an admission of her competence. At least what she was told created a doubt in her mind on who was competent. It was simply a tactful way of dealing with a volatile situation which could result into an all-out hostility or being accused myself of taking sides.
This is the same situation, which happens to some of our community leaders. However, they fail to recognize the effect of their actions and instead, launch themselves into a war. Sometimes they broadcast e-mails to everyone or mumble words which only they can understand that are unnecessary. Not only do they not show their love towards their fellowmen (and women), they also do not show their humility and compassion.
It is not the “I-me-myself” or”what’s-in-it-for-me” type of leadership that gets the cooperation and support of followers and builds trust and positive, lasting relationship --which goes beyond leader-follower situation.
It is not the “I know best” or “my-money-buys-anything” type of leadership that gets the respect of followers, inspires and encourages people.
Rather, it is the humble leader that acts decisively not impulsively when the occasion calls for it that gets the nod of followers.
It is not the hard-nosed, knock-the-walls-down, slash-and-burn, victory-at-any-price kind of leadership that is often lauded all the time.
Rather it is the enduring leadership, the kind that makes a positive, long-range difference characterized by compassion that retains and attracts followers. A compassionate leader cares about people, both as individuals and as a group. A compassionate leader seeks the greatest good for individuals, the group, and the community he or she serves.
Leadership brings out both the best and the worst in people. Wise leaders understand this, accepting it as a natural part of leadership, and try to emphasize the best and minimize the worst.
They recognize that their motives will always be questioned by some and that, even when they are performing at their very best, creating the most good for the most people, some will take offense. Unfortunately, those offended will often be people closest to them or those they have known the longest.
One of a leader’s first responsibilities is to establish order. Moving into any situation, an effective leader begins by creating order. For a leader, order is never merely an exercise of power, but a necessary part of preparation for service.
Contrary to popular opinion, order does not stifle creativity, but promotes it. It does not restrict freedom, but enhances it for the greatest number. There is a vast difference between order and regimentation. Order is not ominous and restrictive, but pleasant and liberating.
Regimentation, which I believe, some of the proposed amendments to the by-laws of the Philippine Independence Day Council, Inc. (PIDCI) are leading to, stifles creativity and restricts freedom. Order creates an environment where freedom and creativity flourish.
It is not just a question of competence that makes a person and a leader but humility and compassion as well.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CHICAGO, Illinois -- F. Lee Bailey, one of the more famous defense lawyers in the United States, had run into trouble with the law.
Former President Marcos, a Philippine bar topnotcher and the only foreign leader to have addressed the joint US Congress without the benefit of a teleprompter, was sent into exile for leading a repressive regime.
Former President Richard Nixon, also a lawyer, was forced to resign in disgrace.
Numerous US congressmen, mostly lawyers, have been hauled into jail for corruption.
These and many other examples are testimonials that lawyers are not immune from committing mistakes.
Despite these embarrassing facts of lawyers’ lives as a backdrop, nobody from among the Filipino American Community of Greater Chicago leaders has the guts to come forward to speak out for or against the constitutional crises facing the FACC organization. Perhaps, they are afraid to commit mistakes? Hey, we are all humans. We all commit mistakes!
Our leaders should take stock in basketball great Michael Jordan, who said, the reason he succeeded is because he was not afraid to fail.
It appears that they are deferring to Atty. Al Bascos to form their own opinion.
Less talk, less mistake
Or perhaps, they believe in the adage that “less talk, less mistake.” Community leaders apparently would rather bury their heads in the sands than speak up. If this happens, one of the largest Filipino civic organizations in the United States will be operating under a climate of silence.
FACC Vice President Rene Abella, the FACC-president-in waiting, has been very quiet since I sent him several questions through an email after the May 28 elections. The outgoing President Herminio “Ka Miniong” Poblete could not even provide me the official list of winners in the last FACC elections although the FACC Constitution and by-laws mandates that the “winners in the election (should be proclaimed) within three (3) days of the election if no election protest is filed.”
Mr. Poblete said, “I have not heard from Mr. Flor Llanes,” the FACC Board of Elections chairman.
Even former FACC President Al Bascos appears to have contributed to the “conspiracy of silence” when he did not respond to my email, seeking answers to some nagging issues, affecting the community.
On Thursday, June 15, according to Dr. Mary Acierto, incumbent Board of Trustees chairperson, who tied in her re-election bid for trustee chairperson with Attorney Bascos, she and other FACC leaders will meet to untie the knot.
I wish her luck!
Board of elections exceeded discretion
But I could now say without fear of contradiction that the meeting will be nothing but productive. Unless, they will be more creative, by going beyond the ambit of the FACC Constitution and By-Laws.
A reading of the FACC Constitution and By-Laws says that during the election of FACC candidates that include the Board of Trustees, filing of candidacies should be done “not later than forty-five (45) days before the election.” The “certified list of candidates and delegates” shall be published “no later than thirty (30) days before election day.”
It does not authorize FACC Board of Elections Chairman Flor Llanes to fix the deadline of filing the candidacy on May 12 or 13. Neither on May 18 when Attorney Bascos submitted his line-up for the candidates for the board of trustees nor May 26 when Doctor Acierto suddenly “changed my mind” to run for Board of Trustees chairmanship.
By extending the deadline of filing of FACC candidates, the FACC Board of Elections violated the constitution, which says, “The Board of Election is prohibited from adopting, amending or modifying the rules of election.”
But the FACC Constitution and By-Laws is explicit that for as long as the officers of the FACC are not elected, the incumbent FACC officials stay.
Also, if nobody disputes the election of FACC officers, including the Board of Directors, and the Community Assembly, the brand new officers and the Board of Directors apparently are going to take over on July 1.
Robert’s Rule of Order, revised
But in the case of the Board of Trustees, it is going to be more complicated. While the group’s constitution and by-laws says the Board of Trustees can break the tie of the elections of “president and vice president,” it does not provide the procedure on how to break the tie when candidates of Board of Trustees get the same number of votes.
In this scenario, the same constitution and by-laws says that if it is not written into the constitution and by laws, its special provision says, the “parliamentary authority which shall govern cases not covered by this Constitution (are) the Roberts’ Rule of Order, Revised” and “The General Not for Profit Corporation Act of 1986, as amended, of the State of Illinois.”
From my limited research on such Roberts’ Rule, there are two ways to break the tie. One is for the President of the organization to cast a deciding vote. And the other is to hold a run-off election.
Attorney Bascos promoted “power-sharing” to untie the knot so as to avoid divisiveness. I don’t know if the Roberts’ Rule will allow this means to break the impasse although the Senate of the Philippines adopted this procedure when it allowed two senators to split the term of Senate President. But I’m sure the Senate of the Philippines is not covered by the “General Not for Profit Corporation Act of 1986” of Illinois. The community will be waiting with bated breathe on how the world of the FACC will turn. Abangan!
(Editor’s Note: The series on the Philippines’ senators trip to China and North Korea will continue in subsequent issues.)
(lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FOR BREVITY, I’ve edited an insightful Internet article: “The Englishman’s Wife” by a Filipino at the University of London.
Ronald Rodriguez, a School of Oriental and African Studies student, writes:
On a Brighton pier, I met an Englishman who thought I was Japanese. He was taken aback when I told him I was from the Philippines. As he apologized, I reassured him I took no offense. Filipino friends and I were mistaken for Chinese.
Why should I make an issue out of a random instance of mistaken identity, I said. The blood in my veins is 100-percent Filipino, notwithstanding my American first name, Ronald, and my Spanish last name, Rodriguez. Identity, I said, is important to know one’s self before it becomes useful for others to know you. He said he’d met Filipino men living in the United Kingdom, the Englishman said. Some would not look him in the eye when they said they were Filipinos. Sad but understandable.
Why is it understandable? I asked. After listening to his stories about Presidents Marcos, Estrada and Arroyo, I realized: Here was one of the few British people who knew a lot about the Philippines.
It’s one thing to be ashamed of leaders, I countered, another to be ashamed of one’s own country. Sometimes, a government reflects a people deceived or whose expectations have been failed by leaders they once trusted.
At the very least, unworthy leaders reflect the people’s mistake -- one that could be corrected, if people choose to.
When I asked the Englishman how he knew so much about the Philippines, he waved his hand -- and a woman afar responded. As she walked closer, I asked: Were we looking at a Filipina? He replied: “Yes, my wife is Filipina.”
There was only one question in my mind: Is she one of those ashamed of their own country? After a long conversation, I asked the Englishman’s wife: What is the Philippines worth to you? Without batting an eyelash, she replied: “Nothing.”
Had she asked what the Philippines was worth to me, I’d have said: “Everything.” For what is a Filipino who lives and dies without trying to make his people a better nation?
How many Filipinos like her exist today? Very few, maybe. And probably, it’s not difficult to win them back. More difficult is making sure that no more Filipinos become like the Englishman’s wife.
Before I left, the Englishman shook my hand and whispered: “As long as you Filipinos believe in yourselves, there’d no reason why we non-Filipinos should not believe in you.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Somebody crossed the line?
|
|
|
|
|
THE recent turn of events on the Philippine scene is highly disturbing. It indicates that political developments maybe entering a new phase. A group maybe running out of options or running out of time. Or both.
We refer to the accelerating trend of unsolved killings which targets left-leaning critics of the government cand truth-spewing journalists. Lump all of them together and the predominant image that emerges is that of the opposition. The opposition that the government brands as the source of “political noise” that distracts attention from its economic program. But parenthetically, one may ask, is not trumpeting economic achievements consisting of spins rather than fact-based numbers be also considered as generating the same kind of noise?
If this analysis were correct, then there is but one objective, namely, to discourage dissent. Through a form of scare tactic. Unfortunately, it so happens the tactic not only produces scare. It also decimates the forces of freedom through brutal assasinations.
As expected, it has not gone unnoticed among freedom-loving nations of the world.
Strong statements have been directed at the Philippine government, among them from the US, denouncing the killings and urging that they be stopped.
This type of suppression is nothing new in the Philippines. Marcos tried it in various forms. We had personal experience of one such deadly pogrom.
Under the guise of stamping out criminality, Marcos once deployed “secret marshals” -- soldiers in mufti -- who, fresh from combat in the killing fields of Mindanao, were let loose upon the civilian populace. As James Bond copy-cats, licensed to kill, untroubled by anything like the Miranda challenge, warrants of arrest, preliminary investigations, trials, etc., they hunted holduppers on board public buses and on encounters put a bullet into their heads pronto.
We headed a large mortuary in southern Metro Manila when this was happening.
A group of these SMs arranged with us for them to hang out in our funeral establishment, while awaiting cases to happen. We agreed and even provided them with refreshments and even gasoline for their vehicles, without knowing how things would turn out.
As it turned out, they would not wait for cases to happen. They caused the cases to happen. It appeared the SMs had a regular quota of notches to mark on their automatic rifles. They would meet with our service staff in the afternoon. They even showed our boys photos of some of criminals they would hunt in the evening. When the night deepened, the SMs drove away asking our people to follow in our van. Our boys related to us what happened later. They would enter a neighborhood where the supposed malefactors were holding out. They would surround the place and shout the names of the hunted. Then the firefight would start.
Sometimes there was no shooting. They would arrest the so-called criminals and load them in their vehicles. On the way back supposedly to their headquarters, usually on a lonely stretch of a road, a scuffle would ensue and the prisoners would make a run for it on the ricefields only to be gunned down “while in the act of escaping’’. Our service van almost never returned empty.
During the hunting season and until the SM project ended, cadavers kept piling up in our morgue. Some whose families we could not trace, we took care with paupers’ burials in a local public cemetery.
This was one phase of the suppression. We had no way to tell whether all those the SMs killed were “legitimate criminals”. From hindsight, we learned legitimate dissenters and Marcos critics simply disappeared.
The killing trend must and will surely end. It will surely reap a whirlwind for those responsible. Just as it did for Marcos. Just think. It is counterproductive as far as encouraging foreign investments are concerned, although apparently some people perceive a more urgent need to scare some people at this time. Somebody had better recross that line.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Don’t treat your Green Cards like a visitor’s visa
|
|
|
|
DEAR Atty. Gurfinkel:
I got my green card several years ago, but I still like my life in the Philippines. So, I spend most of my time in the Philippines, and go to the U.S. only for a month or two each year. The last time I went to the States, the Immigration Officer at the airport asked me how long I was outside the U.S., and started making a big deal about the fact that I’m away all the time. He even wrote something in my passport about warning me.
I have a home and business in the Philippines, my kids are in school, and I’m just not ready to settle down in the States. I thought that as long as I don’t stay outside the U.S. for over one year, that I won’t have any problems in holding on to my green card. Why is the Immigration giving me such a hard time? Very truly yours,
GC
Dear GC:
Some green card holders treat their green card as though it were a visitor’s visa. They come to the U.S. for only a month or two, but spend most of the time in the Philippines. They think that as long as they make brief, periodic trips to the U.S., or if they do not stay outside the U.S. for over one year, they are “safe,” and will not encounter any problems with U.S. Immigration.
However, even though a person has been granted a green card, it is still possible that he could lose his immigrant status, or be considered to have “abandoned” that green card, if he stays outside the U.S. too long or for too much time. The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) takes the position that if a green card holder stays outside the U.S. continuously for more than one year, it is considered as though that person has abandoned his immigrant status (being a green card holder). A green card could be abandoned even if a person is outside the U.S. for less than one year, when he lives and works abroad.
The DHS is taking a stronger stand against these “part-time” green card holders. CBP officers at U.S. entry points (i.e. airports) ask green card holders “How long have you been outside the U.S. on this trip?” In the past, the CBP would not ordinarily question you, even if you stayed out for 11 months, as long as you did not exceed one year. However, now, even if you are out only six months and one day, the CBP could investigate and question why you were out so long, and the CBP could determine that you abandoned your green card.
There are certain steps that you can take to ensure that you retain your immigrant status, if you are planning to stay temporarily out of the U.S. One of the most important things you should do is to maintain evidence or proof of your residence in the U.S., or show that you truly intend to reside in the U.S., such as: - File U.S. tax returns.
- Maintain a U.S. address (either actual or in care of a relative in the U.S. Merely having a P.O. Box does not show you have a residence in the U.S.)
- Make sure you enter the U.S. at least once a year, although the more often you enter and stay in the U.S., the better it is for you.
- Maintain a valid U.S. driver’s license.
- Keep U.S. stocks and bonds.
- Continue to use U.S. credit cards.
- Continue any club memberships in the U.S.
- In any correspondence, make reference to your temporary assignment abroad.
- Maintain bank account in the U.S.
If you file a tax return in another country, make sure that you indicate your residence is the U.S. (Many immigrants abroad are told by accountants that they can avoid paying U.S. taxes by stating that they are not residing in the U.S. However, this attempt at tax savings would directly contradict your status as a “permanent resident” of the U.S., and could affect or jeopardize your immigration status.)
Another thing that you can do to “protect” your immigrant (green card) status is to apply for a “re-entry permit” while you are in the U.S. and before you go abroad. (You cannot apply for a re-entry permit when you are outside the U.S.)
This re-entry permit allows a green card holder to remain outside the U.S. for up to two years, without being considered to have abandoned his immigrant status.
Even if the DHS believes that you have “abandoned” your green card, under certain circumstances, with a proper presentation of appropriate evidence and other documentation, it is possible to overcome this presumption of abandonment of your green card. However, each case is different, and would need to be considered on a case-by-case basis. If you have any questions or problems in this area, I would recommend seeking the advice of a reputable attorney, who can analyze your (or your relative’s) situation and advise you of the appropriate course of action to take or preserve your green card.
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.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
