|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THEY are hailed as modern-day heroes. They are the lifeline that have kept the nation afloat and have prevented our people from drowning in the sea of economic uncertainty.
And yet when it was they who needed help, we only offered a token effort. And when it was time for our government to come to their rescue, we copped out.
We are referring to our Overseas Contract Workers (OCWs) or Overseas Filipino Workers (OFWs).
President Arroyo was all over herself last year, lavishing praises to our OFWs for their record remittance last year. For 2005, Filipinos abroad sent home more than US $10 billion.
It was this money that buoyed up the Philippine economy. It was this money that eased the hardship and poverty of most people back home in the Philippines. And it was this money that helped prop up the Arroyo administration, making it look good despite a badly mismanaged economy teetering on the brink of collapse.
And because of their contribution, they were hailed as heroes. And rightly so.
But the past couple of days saw our heroes and heroines in grave danger, caught in the crossfire of a vicious war in a faraway land. There are more than 30,000 Filipino workers in Lebanon, and another 30,000 in Israel. They needed to be evacuated before the war gets any worse.
Unfortunately, the Arroyo government had to count the cost first before it actually moved to extract our heroes out of the war zone. And when it finally decided to shell out P1 billion to repatriate OFWs in Lebanon, it was not enough to get them all out of danger. President Arroyo was reduced to pathetically begging countries to allow Filipinos to hitch rides on their rescue planes.
Why? It’s not as if the Philippines has no money for such an operation. Part of the fees that OFWs pay before flying to their destinations go to the Overseas Workers Welfare Administration (OWWA). As of last count, OWWA has a total fund of P7.6 billion.
Why did the government refuse to touch this fund for evacuation in Lebanon? If there is any welfare of OFWs that needs to be addressed, it is the very safety of the people who did not flinch nor thought about their welfare when they went to work in foreign lands, away from their loved ones.
Modern-day heroes? Only when they are useful to the government.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PHNOM PENH – Some board members of the Philippine Independence Day Council, Inc. (PIDCI) just don’t get it. After their call for a meeting to ratify proposed changes to PIDCI by-laws was twice snubbed by member-organizations, they now have come up with a plan to bid for a third attempt. The two supposed meetings, the latest on July 11, were not held due to a lack of quorum.
Don’t these board members get the message from their constituents? No one is interested in coming to a meeting to ratify the proposed changes. These membership-organizations know that the supposed by-laws committee was discharged of its responsibility when the board accepted its report and first considered the proposals.
If a motion to lay the proposals on the table was approved by majority of the members, further deliberation ceases, period. Unless a motion to take them off the table and prevailed in the process, no further consideration of the proposals – even only a segment of its entirety – is allowed. That's according to the Robert's Rules of Parliamentary Practice, a book that is cited as an authority in PIDCI's by-laws.
But the proponents of the proposals are trying harder, reminding me of that old Avis Rent-A-Car slogan: “We try harder.” Well, in its efforts to try harder, a gimmick was concocted on July 11 after PIDCI failed again to generate the required attendance.
To make use of their time, board members had an emergency meeting on the same day to consider how to “attract enough leaders to form a quorum.” I guess the term “emergency” meant that they had to try harder to have the proposals ratified.
If it isn't, perhaps a statement made by one board member encouraging members to attend could be true: “Nahihiya na ako na magpakita sa Philippine Consulate at sa mga ibang Organization dahil hindi tayo nagkakaisa.” (I’m ashamed to show myself at the Philippine Consulate and to other organizations because we are not united.)
The plan, which is slated to be held on August 1, offers “two parts.” From the looks and smell of it, it is like a typical bait-and-switch hard-sell tactics by unscrupulous merchandisers on Times Square.
First is the “Meet the Presidents,” which is scheduled to run for an hour and a half followed by a second part called “Ratification Meeting.” The entire program is designed to commence at 6:30 p.m. and end at 9 p.m. For those of you that have attended PIDCI meetings at the Philippine Center, you know this is wishful thinking. Their meetings don't start and end on time.
But you’ve got to give credit to the mastermind or organizers of the event. However, no amount of sugar-coating can hide the fact that the proposals are void ab initio (unacceptable or defective from the beginning.) The process by which they came up with these proposed changes did not observe salient provisions of PIDCI by-laws.
A question is raised: How could these proposals be ratified if the supposed lawmakers are at the same time they themselves are lawbreakers?
This idea of inviting community leaders to a First Annual Mabuhay Night, which is supposed to “honor and acknowledge the contributions of the Presidents/Heads of PIDCI member-organizations to the Fil-Am community,” is a slapped against the intelligence of the people they are trying harder to attend.
The event is plain deception; the actual purpose is for the presidents or their representatives to ratify the proposed changes to the by-laws. It failed twice to muster attendance and with a little marketing savvy, you think the event would generate enough people to attend?
The lack of attendance by the general membership is a clear message: “No to proposed changes in the by-laws unless the process is done properly.” The lack of attendance is like that economic theory on diminishing returns. In PIDCI, the more you push people to attend, the more they are discouraged. The less people they see at one failed meeting, the less likely they will attend the second time, and so on.
Besides, in Article VIII of PIDCI by-laws, it stipulates that “amendments…subject to ratification by the membership in a membership meeting called for that purpose alone, the date of which is different from the election date.”
Notice the underlined words, which is a clear instruction that no other event, such as the “Meet the Presidents” segment of the meeting, can be held except to ratify proposed amendments.
I can’t imagine how leaders could be dragged into attending such an event. Is it because the event organizers believe they could hood-wink top leaders “to introduce themselves and to present the missions, purposes, projects and achievements of their organizations?”
Suppose 200 member-organizations were in attendance, would the 30-minute allotted time in the program be sufficient to include all the “missions, purposes, projects and achievements” of each organization? If I were there, I’d probably be hearing lots of snores and ho-hums.
But obviously hidden in this grand scheme are some “positive aspects,” which someone identified in one of the e-mails that went around, of the “Meet the Presidents” segment. Clearly, it provides “an opportunity for the Presidents and PIDCI candidates to meet.” In other words, the event is intended to allow PIDCI wannabe leaders to pitch their candidacies or “test the water,” so to speak.
Whether this event can be considered “positioning” or “early posturing,” both terms have the same effect: They leave a sour taste in the mouth of people that are sick of politicizing PIDCI. Contrary to the claim that the event could “promote camaraderie, peace, unity and good relations,” this gathering may just end up with the opposite.
Would the event provide other candidates that are not associated with the ruling faction equal time in the program? Would they also be included in the organizing committee for this purpose?
This Mabuhay Night, also known as ratification meeting, is a good plan for a team building exercise but hatched for the wrong reason and the wrong time. And the organizer has all the reasons to accuse members of the board that do not support his idea as “disrespectful, discourteous, defiant, despicable and mean against the board.”
Which, as a result, a board member responded: “I am sorry I will not be present at the meeting.” This attempt to try harder to push for ratification has and is continuing to cause deep division and hurt feelings within the ranks of board members.
As some folks say: It is a good plan to fail for the third time. No matter how someone pleads to his fellow board members to attend, encouraging everyone to get serious, and “to show our love and respect” to the president, his call will still not cut the mustard.
Two failed meetings should be considered as an indication of the voice of the membership. A third attempt, disguised as honoring the achievements of presidents of member-organizations, is overkill.
Give it a rest amigos; enough of trying harder.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Fil vets’ benefit losses evolving into war crime?
|
|
|
|
CHICAGO -- On Wednesday, July 26, Filipino soldiers and guerillas observed their conscription into World War II by US President Franklin Delano Roosevelt 65 years ago.
In a military order, issued on July 26, 1941 an edict entitled, “Placing Land and Sea Forces of Philippines Under United States Commands,” Roosevelt said:
“Under and by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution of the United States, by section 2(a)(12) of the Philippine Independence Act of March 24, 1934 (48 Stat. 457), and by the corresponding provision of the Ordinance appended to the Constitution of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, and as Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, I hereby call and order into the service of the armed forces of the United States for the period of the existing emergency, and place under the command of a General Officer, United States Army, to be designated by the Secretary of War from time to time, all of the organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines: Provided, that all naval components thereof shall be placed under the command of the Commandant of the Sixteenth Naval District, United States Navy.
“This order shall take effect with relation to all units and personnel of the organized military forces of the Government of the Commonwealth of the Philippines, from and after the dates and hours, respectively, indicated in orders to be issued from time to time by the General Officer, United States Army, designated by the Secretary of War.”
Mandatory order
At that time, the marching order making it mandatory, not voluntary, appeared to be in the air for Filipinos as war clouds gathered momentum in the European theater of World War II. But they were obviously ill-equipped and ill-prepared.
The four month-crash course by Filipino soldiers to take a defensive stand against invading forces was really not enough.
The Philippine Commonwealth Army, who were trained more to keep domestic order than to repulse invading forces, was no match to the superiorly armed and battled-tested Japanese Forces.
This was proven when Japanese finally attacked the Filipino Army-backed US Forces in the Philippines the day after the “Day of Infamy” at the Pearl Harbor on Dec. 7, 1941. It took Gen. Douglas MacArthur two months in February 1942 to figure out that the Commonwealth Army he trained and the hundreds of US Army soldiers under his command could not even last another two months to prevent the Fall of Bataan on April 9, 1942.
Of course, to shore up the morale of the battered Filipino soldiers, MacArthur assured the unexpecting Filipino soldiers that they would be paid equal to the amount paid to US Army and 66 other coalition forces who fought under the American flag.
MacArthur’s promise aside
But with or without MacArthur’s promise, Filipino soldiers under the “Uniform Code of Military Justice” were assured of equal pay received by other members of the American Forces.
For instance, under the Code, originally known as “Articles of War” adopted on April 10, 1806, that has since been amended for adoption in World War I and World War II, if the Filipino soldiers violated this Code, they could be subjected to fines and imprisonment. If Filipino soldiers were not entitled to full pay, the Code should have been more specific that in the event that Filipino soldiers broke the Code, they should only be asked to pay half the amount of the penalty because they would only be paid half the salary.
I just cannot figure out how the Code would say that in the event the Filipino soldiers were injured they would only feel half the pain or if they were killed in combat, they would only be presumed as half-dead!
But really, the overwhelming reason that the Filipino soldiers were entitled to equal pay is the provision in the Code that if they refused to follow the Code, they could be accused of desertion, whose maximum penalty is death.
If Roosevelt’s order were voluntary, it was fine. Filipino soldiers were joining the war at their own risk.
But by making the mobilization order compulsory, it gave the Filipino soldiers no choice to opt out of the order. It was damn-if-you-do and damn-if-you-don’t order!
Motion to dismiss filed
As I write this column, I learned from the public affairs section of the Department of Justice in Washington, D.C. that a DOJ lawyer has filed a motion to dismiss one of the seven cases filed recently by Filipino soldiers due to “statute of limitation,” which allows complainants to sue the US government within six years after the occurrence of the violation.
So, it is now again safe to assume that the remaining six other cases pending before the US Claims of Court in Washington, D.C., which for the first time, are demanding jury, not bench, trial, are likely going to be thrown out. There has been a dozen of similar cases before that have been filed. All of them, some reaching the US Supreme Court, had been dismissed.
If this happens, one of the petitioners, Fr. Prisco Entines, an orphan of one of the Filipino soldiers who was killed in combat in World War II, will likely elevate his case before the International Court of Justice, which tries cases, like murders and war crimes that have no statutes of limitation.
Let’s give Fr. Entines our full support, including financial assistance. He will need all the help we can give him. He can be reached at his email address at frentines@hotmail.com.
(lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Kids as state of the nation
|
|
|
|
|
EVER heard of “Megan’s Law”? It is the toughest sex-offender registry law in the United States. New Jersey adopted it after 7-year-old Megan Kanka was raped and then murdered by a twice-convicted child molester who had moved into the house across the street from her home.
The law requires that citizens be warned when dangerous sex offenders are freed. Members of parliament from the United Kingdom visited New Jersey to see how the “Megan Law” worked, the British Broadcasting Corp. reported.
Indeed, the litmus test for any country is how it treats children. The BBC report underscores how crime against children has spread worldwide. The Philippines, for example, “is a source, transit and destination country for men, women and children trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation and forced labor,” the US Department of State’s “Trafficking In Persons Report 2005” pointed out.
The 2006 report did observe “initial progress” here. The number of prosecutors was jacked up, but convictions were sparse. Republic Act 9208 clamps stiff penalties on trafficking. In May 22, President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo signed the Juvenile Justice and Welfare Act of 2006.
Under Republic Act 9344, children 15 years and below are exempt from criminal liability. Those aged 15 to 18 years may be criminally charged only if it’s shown they had discernment when they ran afoul of the law.
Shoving arrested kids into the slammer, often jammed with hardened criminals, is now banned. They’re turned over to social workers. Cases are referred to rehabilitation programs, instead of trial courts.
These laws are fine, as they go. But it took all of nine years for church and non-governmental organizations to lobby for enactment of RA 9344, the juvenile justice bill. As beneficiaries, children are voiceless, unable to protest and vulnerable.
Many officials, however, heed only those who protest loudest. “The squeaking wheel gets the grease,” the old axiom says. So, was it the Filipino trait of “hiya” [shame] that did the trick?
In August 2005, CNN and ITN aired stark images of thousands of Filipino kids, held in adult, overcrowded jails. Chris Rogers documented cases of children physically and sexually abused by adult inmates, some of them convicted sexual offenders.
The footage sparked a torrent of outraged protests here and abroad. In a February 2006 followup telecast, Rogers and his team revealed that children continued to be abused. Only then did the President certify as urgent the bill to Congress.
And what of young lives wrecked while politicians didn’t bother. What is the bill extorted by official deafness? “Can you hear the children crying, o my brothers / ‘Ere sorrow come with the years,” asks Elizabeth Barret Browning.
To mean anything, laws must be implemented. The “Megan Law,” a Gannet News Service investigation found, stands as “one of the weakest in the nation” because of lax implementation. And that is true, too, for our laws on abused kids. “Laws are like cobwebs,” Jonathan Swift wrote. “They catch small flies but let wasps and hornets break through.”
The Juvenile Justice Law has resulted in more children released. Preda Foundation, for example, got charges against 22 dismissed. Now, 16 are enrolled in formal school, the rest are receiving informal literacy education. If they were in Cebu City, they’d be targeted by vigilantes that City Hall coddles.
But overall, implementation is slow. There’s money for a pork barrel, replenished by the increased and expanded value-added tax. But the government has only a handful of poorly staffed recovery and rehabilitation centers. Central Luzon has one jammed poorly managed government home for trafficked girls. Good Shepherd sisters and other religious groups pitch in.
“Hardly any are helped to bring charges against their traffickers,” the Preda Newsletter notes. The Department of Social Welfare sends most home. “They are soon trafficked again. There is no interest to raid sex clubs and rescue children by the police, labor or social welfare departments. ‘It’s bad for tourism,’ officials say.”
The more insidious problem is the areglo (case fixing), says Fr. Shay Cullen whose life has been devoted to protecting kids. All too often, local government officials and parents arrange for “compensation” by the sex molester. “Making an areglo is a common practice.” Local officials pocket most of the money and give parents a pittance.
“The parents don’t realize that they are, in reality, pimping their child. And so are the officials. But the abuser goes free to molest more children.”
Cullen cites the case of 8-year-old Annie. Preda staff had rescued her. Then, “we found out that the areglo or payoff was made. The abuser came back and raped Annie again.”
“We have him in prison awaiting trial,” Cullen says. “He faces life in prison if convicted. We endure meanwhile death threats from his powerful relatives and friends.”
On Monday, July 24, the President delivered her predictably up-beat State of the Nation Address. And just as predictably, the opposition derided her assessment. Isn’t this another sterile exchange between those who turn deaf to the sighs of orphans and drink the tears of children?
But children, including the ravaged Annie, like Megan, are the truer state of the nation. They’re the valid yardstick to measure all our actions by.
E-mail: juan_mercado@paci-fic.net.ph
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
INSPITE of assurances by given by military, police and civilian leaders of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo that moves to destabilize her government were now under control, preparations for the delivery of her State of the Nation Address (SONA) to the people belied the claim.
In the first place, the number of military and policemen deployed in the area of the Batasan Pambansa surpassed all previous records -- 16,000 strong. Someone observed GMA seemed afraid of the people.
In the second place orders were issued to file charges against the elite marines and army rangers who have been identified as involved in the coup attempt last February.
The weather bureau announced that typhoon Glenda which had passed Metro Manila which was now beyond its radius even if it was still causing rains. Still it was used as an excuse to declare a school holiday in all levels for Metro Manila and six neighboring provinces.
Some surmised the real reason was to prevent students from participating in the scheduled rallies protesting the SONA. The rains did discourage attendance in the rallies.
Other precautions taken were the suspension of government offices. The Bangko Sentral suspended its clearing functions. Trading at the stock exchange was cancelled. We are sure this was to prevent financial chaos should rallies and marches develop into violence. Could you imagine what panic this would cause in the banks and stock trading?
The state of the nation, inspite of all assurances to the contrary, was one of tension as a result of political instability.
In preliminary announcements to the media, the message was that GMA in her address will keep off politics and focus on economics. In fact, early in her speech she gave the same message.
Some compared SONA to the report of a corporate chief to his or her board of directors and shareholders about what the company has achieved in the past year.
Typically, based on such report, the corporate chief would be reelected or dismissed on the basis of what he or she tells the directors and shareholders.
The SONA was nothing of the sort.
GMA’s speech was like a typical smalltown politician’s speech. She acknowledged various sectors for “jobs well down”. She mentioned selected personalities and on cue, each introduction was greeted with applause. For example, she quantified the reduction of corruption in several places by percentages. How this could be done escaped us since these sins are hard to track down.
In general, her report was a recitation of promised accomplishments in the next few years, after assuring her audience that there were now funds available for this purpose.
She divided the country into special regions and allocated special programs to be undertaken in each. She would end the centralization of funding to “imperial Manila”. We guess the purported strategy is to be sure some regions would be successful to cover up failures in others.
Right after the SONA, several including some of her own allies described her speech as a travelogue. Some called it an inventory of public works projects. Others questioned the sources of funding.
The most serious criticism was that she dealt with macros, neglecting the micros.
By micros is meant those aspects that touch the lives of the small people. One economist said what matters are jobs, prices and poverty. He said GMA did not touch these at all.
When the leader makes promises, what matters is credibility. The polling group Pulse Asia for June and July reported its latest survey of 1,200 adults. The result:
Approval of GMA’s performance -- 26 percent. Her trust rating -- 25 percent. In 2001 to 2004, her approval rating was 46 to 56 percent. Her trust rating was 40 to 51 percent.
GMA could not have followed the typical format of a CEO’s corporate report, that is, recounting her past year’s achievements. It would turn out to be a dismal report.
She would be replaced by the shareholders. On the other hand, resorting as she did to a litany of promises, her credibility becomes an insurmountable problem.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The August 2006 priority dates
|
|
|
|
THE priority dates for Second Preference 2B (unmarried sons and daughters over 21 of green card holders) and Third Preference (married sons and daughters of U.S. citizens) retrogressed (or moved backwards), but the rest of the family petitions moved forward, as shown in the monthly Visa Bulletin for August 2006, released by the State Department.
There were no changes in the priority dates for employment-based petitions. The priority date for professional/skilled workers did not move, and the priority dates for employment-based petitions for “other” (or unskilled workers) remains unavailable, meaning no visas will be issued for this category until typically October of 2006, which is the start of a new “fiscal year” for visas.
Petitions by Citizens:
The priority date for the First Preference Category, F-1 (unmarried sons and daughters of U.S. citizens, over 21 years of age) moved forward by 1 year and 9 days, from September 22, 1991 to October 1, 1992.
The Third Preference Category, F-3 (married sons and daughters of United States citizens) retrogressed (or moved backwards) by 2 years and 8 months, from July 1, 1988 to December 1, 1985. (In April 2006, the priority date was already up to February 8, 1991. So it has moved backward about 6 years since April 2006!)
The Fourth Preference, F-4 (brothers and sisters of United States citizens) moved forward by 1 month, from December 15, 1983 to January 15, 1984.
Petitions by Green Card Holders:
The Second Preference Category, F-2A (Spouse and minor children of green card holders) moved forward by 1 week, from September 1, 1999 to September 8, 1999.
The Second Preference, F-2B (unmarried sons and daughters, over 21 years of age, of green card holders), retrogressed by 3 years, 7 months, and 1 week, from July 8, 1996 to December 1, 1992.
Petitions by Employers:
The Third Preference (professionals and skilled workers) of Employment-Based Petitions (Labor Certification) did not move and remained at October 1, 2001. The Third Preference (non-skilled workers) is unavailable. When it becomes available, the priority date would most probably return to about October 1, 2000. The priority date for Schedule A workers (nurses/physical therapists) is still current.
Each month, the Visa Office of the State Department publishes the priority dates for that particular month. This means that visas would now be available for persons whose priority date is earlier than the cut-off date listed below. If your priority date was “current”, but retrogressed before your immigrant visa was issued (or you adjusted status in the U.S.), then you need to wait until your priority date becomes current again.
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.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
