|
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 whether to order a retake of the June nursing board exam has placed President Gloria Arroyo in a damn-if-you-do, damn-if-you-don’t dilemma. On Thursday, September 28, President Arroyo finally ordered all examinees of the scandal-tainted nursing board test to go back to the testing sites and take the exam anew.
Executive Secretary Eduardo Ermita said the President decided to order the retake
“to redeem the image of Filipino nurses here and abroad”, adding that Cabinet members with whom Mrs.. Arroyo met to discuss the issue had argued for the retake in the conviction that “the integrity of the exam and of the nursing profession was at stake.”
Although the decision seems easy enough to understand, the solution adopted by the Arroyo government is actually too simplistic. Just because there was test paper leakage that benefitted some doesn’t mean that everyone who took the exam cheated. The same logic can be applied to laundry: to clean a stain, it is not necessary to wash the whole shirt.
Moreover, ordering all the examinees to retake the tests is tantamount to accusing everyone of committing the offense. Whatever happened to the basic tenet of the justice system that “everyone is presumed innocent until proven guilty”? By requiring everyone to take the tests anew, Mrs.. Arroyo is presuming everyone guilty who has to prove his or her innocence.
It’s not the fault of those who took the tests in good faith that there were some bad eggs among them. And because the government cannot punish the guilty, it would just go on and punish everyone. The more we think about the Arroyo decision, the more we become convinced that it is not simplistic justice. It’s actually gross injustice.
Rather than order an across-the-board, wholesale retake, the President should have come up with a better thought-up plan, such as limiting the retake to the area where the leakage took place; requiring only a retake on test numbers that were leaked; requiring only those who took review classes from the suspect review centers to do the retake, etc.
These measures are enough to rehabilitate the integrity of the nursing profession and to nurse back the image of Filipino nurses abroad to respectability.
No need to presume them all guilty. No need to punish the non-guilty.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PHNOM PENH, Cambodia --- One of the humbling moments in the work of a columnist is to read a large number of reader’s reactions to a point of view he has raised in an article.
In “Casting Call,” which was about the upcoming Philippine Independence Day Council, Inc. (PIDCI) elections in New York City, where it appealed to both sides of political persuasion: those that support Gani Puertollano, outgoing president, and those that are opposed to his re-election bid, a surge of e-mails reached my mailbox.
To add to this encouraging outcome is that even though the article is yet to be posted in this paper’s Website where it attracts a wider audience, readers of the print edition have already showed great interest in the article. That is a good indication of what is yet to come as the heat sizzles in the race for the PIDCI presidency.
It seems that people are steadily watching this drama that is unfolding every moment as the election of a president draws to a close. And as is the case in every election, there are already potshots aimed at the candidates. One of which that appeared was the acronym P-SWEAR, referring to the initials of Puertollano and the five board member aspirants: Soriano, Wycoco, Estrellado, Atinaja and Rosario.
Although this scattershot did not mention what it meant, he seemed to have left it to people’s interpretation or imagination. And of course with this word play, anyone can draw a conclusion of what the abbreviation is all about.
As far as the board member posts are concerned, the candidates are considered a shoo-in. That is, unless they withdraw from the race, the six candidates are already board members. And if Puertollano is re-elected president, a vacancy in the board is up for grabs. Would that vacancy be filled by appointment or by election? If by appointment, which is most likely to happen, who would that person be?
A reader wrote in his e-mail: “Are candidates automatically elected when there are no other candidates besides them? If there are about 100 member organizations and less than half of them cast their vote, would you consider the election results a mandate and a vote of confidence?”
JJ was referring to the six board member hopefuls. I don’t think there is a clear provision in the PIDCI by-laws about that. If I were a candidate, I’d like to receive 51 percent of the voting members. This is one way of ensuring decent elections and dealing with the “hakot” system which afflicts most organizations like PIDCI.
And speaking of the by-laws, since one provision could be in conflict with another stipulation, there could be many ways of interpreting the spirit and the intent of these by-laws. It is a frustrating effort to even reconcile these differences in the right context that perhaps even legal counsels dare to thread or speak their mind out.
Reacting to a recent decision of board members to allow Puertollano to run for re-election overriding Lolita Gillberg’s ruling to disqualify him, a reader wrote: “Nobody should be above the law. There are people who think that laws are just tools to promote their own agenda. If they are inconvenient, they have to be disregarded. They are enforced only if they are not in the way to their plan of creating or realigning the community to their liking.”
Most of the e-mails I received are not quite favorable to Puertollano. For instance, a reader says that “nowhere can I get information about PIDCI than through your ‘One on One’ column. Thank you for bringing these issues out to the community, it’s really an eye-opener.”
Then she went on with a lengthy denunciation of certain PIDCI leaders and their followers but her e-mail was a compelling letter nevertheless. For the most part of her e-mail, she conceives of a conspiracy, which she calls, “a tyranny of majority. This group, she says, aims to control the leadership of PIDCI year after year as if they were the “only children of God entitled to run the show.”
That is why, she adds, they did not renew their membership. Then she ended her e-mail with a sense of appreciation of my work. “I may have misread your intentions before but now I know you really have an independent mind.”
For his part, Puertollano explained in a conversation with me, the reason why he was running again. “I don’t feel good about leaving PIDCI with an $18,000 deficit. That is not me. I want to work hard on raising funds to clear that account and redeeming myself from all the bad things that some people have been saying about me.”
“I love the organization,” he said. Then he started recalling several instances where he felt he was not supported by people who he had expected to perform, which eventually led to the organization incurring debts.
“As directors, their commitment should be to the organization. They saw me as their opponent. As a sign of silent protest against my administration, they didn’t show up to our important events. They were supposed to bring 10 guests to fill a table at these functions but none of them did.”
An obvious Puertollano supporter writes that I should leave Gani [Puertollano] alone. She accused me of being unfair to Gani and suggested that I read PIDCI’s by-laws. She asked: “Doesn’t he have the right to run again?” Her short e-mail ended with a post script note: “Aren’t you his friend?”
Well, I’ve read and heard those expressions before every time a controversial issue in PIDCI comes up and I write about it. But the truth is, unlike other media people that I know of, I don’t side with any individual or group of individuals.
Contrary to allegations of some people, I value my impartiality and I speak my mind out. It has nothing to do with seeking attention or popularity or “increasing subscription and street sales of this paper.” What matters to me are the community that I serve and a belief that people have the right to be informed. And hopefully, they form an opinion of their own and participate in a healthy debate on community issues.
Although it is a trite expression to say that we are all in this together, emphasizing it doesn’t hurt because in the end, what affects one ultimately leads to all of us as Filipino immigrants to this country or Americans of Filipino ancestry.
Besides Puertollano and the Versozas -- Paul and Wilson – in that article, I also have raised the issues of fewer candidates to a board seat and the low turn-out of membership renewals.
These may have been overlooked by readers as majority of the reactions I received pertained to Puertollano’s decision to run for re-election. And many of these letters are against his decision claiming that his action will only discourage those who are willing to serve.
A reader wanted to know Puertollano’s motivation to run again. “Isn’t he just being egged on by a circle of supposed advisers who are manipulating him so that they could be in control of the organization?” That’s a fully loaded question which Puertollano may find difficult to admit or deny.
The question is: If Puertollano and the board member aspirants win, is it the will of the majority?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Never again: The evils of martial law
|
|
|
|
CHICAGO – The karmic effect of martial law in Thailand last week is a dagger waiting to pierce the heart of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. But Mrs. Arroyo is ready to deflect it.
A good student of history, Mrs. Arroyo knows by heart the evils that martial law brings. But she is not panicking. She was about 24 years old when she witnessed how Marcos crippled press freedom and civil liberties with martial law.
But if she keeps on ignoring its lessons much further, she could be wallowing in quicksand. She could sink faster than she could ask for help.
Good Riddance
The military in Thailand simply waited for a proper timing. It came last week when Prime Minister Thanksin Shinawatra left town and told him not to return.
Despite the warnings on the wall, Thanksin, who made the mistake of not cultivating a loyal general who could tip him off of the impending coup, moved ahead with his trip to the United Nations in New York.
Earlier, the corruption-driven Thanksin promised to step down after merely polling 57 percent of the votes when he ran unopposed in a referendum the opposition boycotted. But he did not keep his promise to step down.
But then, again, even if things unraveled in Thailand, Mrs. Arroyo was unperturbed. She was even quoted as saying that the events in Thailand do not deter her from traveling. Really? Let’s see why.
Bad timing of Thailand martial law
And to think that the martial law declaration in Thailand came a couple of days before the 34th anniversary martial law declaration of President Marcos on Sept. 21, 1972,
Actually, Marcos implemented martial law on Sept. 23, 1972 after a two-day cooling off period when his soldiers started padlocking and taking over newspaper offices and radio and television stations around the country after rounding up known opposition leaders.
So, when community leaders and guests discuss the killings of journalists, political activists and clergies who attended the Kapihan sa Chicago on September 23, the martial law of Marcos was the main course.
Why? Because most of the extra-judicial killings under martial law were left unsolved. In short, martial law, which subverts civilian supremacy, was and is an enabler of human rights violations.
And it looks like the succeeding governments of Marcos could not get it. So, the killings of journalists and civil rights fighters continue from Aquino, Ramos, Estrada and now to Arroyo administration.
It’s All Economics
For me, most of the killings of journalists are rooted in economics -- money.
When you do not compensate journalists for their struggles in getting the facts to the deadlines, they succumb to temptation of people who wanted to stop them from spilling the beans. This is called bribery of journalists.
If publishers do not pay their journalists or underpay them, journalists succumb to temptations to kill the story or refuse to get the sides of all concerned in the story.
And people, who are placed in a bad light, are forced to either sue the journalists or maim them.
Because it is very hard to get a court conviction of journalists in libel cases, instead of paying a lawyer, these corrupt people will pay hitmen to kill or harm journalists.
Publishers don’t get ads and subscribers
Some publishers, however, complain that businessmen don’t advertise in their newspapers. Those in radios and televisions would likewise complain. And readers do not subscribe to their publications, either. So, they do not have sources to pay their writers, photojournalists and cameramen.
And if parties who are libeled by journalists are really interested in seeking redress, they should lobby the Philippine Congress to decriminalize libel violations.
In addition, publishers should also buy “libel” insurance so that if they are sued for multi-million pesos, they have insurance coverage to fall back on.
These issues that came up at the Kapihan are going to be presented to the Conference of Filipino Media and Philippine Democracy at the four-day 4th Global Networking Convention and 7th National NaFFAA Conference between Sept. 28 and Oct. 1, 2006 in Honolulu, Hawaii.
Arroyo’s Dubious Record
There, they will tell delegates that the administration of Arroyo has the highest number of journalists killed, compared to other post-Marcos presidents.
But I’m sure she is not going to listen.
She already told the Filipino people that she would not run for president but she lied and run. She was already impeached for stealing her election but she hanged tough.
Major corruption allegations have been thrown at her and her family. But she is still in office. I have an idea why she has been a survivor.
She packed her government with former military generals. Among them are the executive secretary and the transportation secretary. Arroyo usually awards plum positions to retiring Armed Forces generals to keep them from staging coups. She knows that generals, like journalists, are lowly paid workers. They don’t have financial security after their retirements. So, by re-hiring the retired generals in command of the Philippine government, Arroyo believes that nobody in the military would ever dare pull a coup.
(lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
(Pooled editorial for Press Freedom Week 2006, published by Cebu newspapers and broadcast in all stations. )
“JOURNALISM should consider itself a service, rather than a power,” an El Colombiano editorial suggests. And this could help Cebu Press Freedom Week 2006 gird for challenges ahead.
A hired-gun killed columnist Antonio Abad Tormis for exposing graft. It was the country’s first-ever murder of a crusading journalist. “Assassination is the ultimate censorship”. So, attention focused on the mounting number of slain journalists: 74 since 1986, some claim.
The Center for Media Freedom and Responsibility trimmed that tally down to 54. In “The Danger of Impunity” report, CMFR dismissed the mere possession of a press card and included only “work-related” killings. Edgar Dalamerio of Pagadian and Marlene Garcia-Esperat of Sultan Kudarat, who were salvaged because of their exposes, fell in that grisly category.
This is 54 deaths too much, “it’s one of the world’s worst records,” the International Press Institute said. But we did not come to this overnight.
As early as 2000, Cebu media protested the death toll had reached 32, It rose to 48 by 2004 -- and surged yet more. Inept law enforcers, linked to the underworld, meant few arrests and zero convictions of masterminds. This spawned a pernicious culture of impunity.
Most attacks were in the provinces, CMFR noted. And 54 percent of victims are walk-in buyers of airtime or “blocktimers”. About 80 percent lacked Kapisanan Ng Mga Brodkaster accreditation. Few were trained in objectivity, balance, fairness, etc.
“Press freedom is more than just being allowed to call the President a schumuk” Jerry Lewis once noted. It is, above all, about service anchored to core values: “to inform, to entertain, to educate, to advise, to shed light in dark places”.
The KBP standards committee is tightening its accreditation rules. It’s Radio Code forbids open-ended contracts for block timers. The Cebu Citizens Press Council and KBP seek to broaden self-regulation. The Supreme Court meanwhile moved the trial of Damalerio and Esperat to Cebu -- a tribute to the judiciary here
No one pretends this is enough. Where accountability remains fuzzy, abuses will continue. But it’s a modest start. These may “help end the impunity that killers of journalists wield”, says the Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism.
Internal reforms are the litmus test. “I’m not the editor of a newspaper, and shall always do right and be good,” Mark Twain once said, adding: “so God will not make me one.” Media in Cebu have their work cut out in three crucial areas:
First is to make “values that endure even after the sun goes out” operative in newsrooms. These codes of ethics, set standards for : fairness, accuracy, balance, respect for dignity, conflict of interest, and old fashioned integrity. These values anchor the social contract between the credible journalist and the public he or she serves, as El Colombiano stressed.
Internal mechanisms within, Cebu papers and stations, carefully ensure complaints are heard. The right of reply is observed. And journalists court dismissal for dolling up political or financial benefactors. Nor can they doctor facts.
“I know how to report the news and how not to hurt people”, the grizzled editor muses in the film “Absence of Malice”. “But I don’t know how to do both at the same time”. Indeed, the best journalism often hurts someone without meaning to. But values that endure offer the only basis for resolving such dilemmas.
Today, Cebu’s media increasingly pours resources and effort to probe what the European Union’s founding father, Jean Monet, called : “deep running currents” -- developments underfoot that recast lives and communities.
There’s been a growth in hard-nosed reporting and analysis and less of trash. More journalists – younger, idealistic and often better educated than their elders -- report significance from a plurality of voices. A bumper harvest of awards attest to this service.
Superficiality, however, still hobbles some. Few read enough. Many remain parochial. Prime-time reports seem forever glued to police blotter sleaze “it’s easier to get on the front page (or prime time) with scandal than with substance,” editor Bernard Aronson notes. “It takes less work to mock the pretensions of public officials than to analyze their policies”
Shallowness sells our readers and audiences short. Worse it makes us vulnerable to manipulation by “special pleaders” : politicians or commissars who try to reshape our pages and programs to their graven images.
New information technology is recasting our newsrooms. Webpages today are “rematted” every 15 minutes. Editor-reporter links are thinning. The speed paradoxically increases the need for working at depth. The rush can compromise the press functions : “schoolmaster of the people”, watchdog and society’s early warning system.
Technology is made for man, not vice versa. All of us are in danger of standing that yardstick on it’s head. “(Technology) diminishes the importance of news which is the ultimate journalistic standard,” the Nobel Laureate Gabriel Garcia Marquez Latin American editors. “Never has this profession been more dangerous.”
Danger, however, offers opportunity. This is a country where ‘the weak are trampled on and the needy bought for a pair of sandals’, the 1998 Press Freedom Week editorial pointed out. The press is tasked to use the latitude this freedom provides for the service of what is good and just...We are first and last stewards of this gift.”
That remains true for Cebu Press Freedom Week 2006. Indeed, “journalism should consider itself a service, rather than a power,” as the El Colombiano editorial suggested.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THE sad joke is on Joc-Joc Bolante, former Philippine agriculture undersecretary, alleged bagman of the First Couple and so-called designer and implementor of the P728 million fertilizer fund scam.
He may be a marketing wizard. He reportedly made millions for himself and for Prudential Life Plan, the pre-need company he cofounded with businessman Francisco Alba, selling funeral plans.
It takes a lot of skill and careful planning to achieve what he has achieved in business. If he did what he was accused of, perpetrating the humongous plunder that was the fertilizer scam, what happened to his analytical executive mental ability?
We venture to guess that closeness to the power center in government probably clouded his sharp thinking prowess. He overlooked one thing that seemed insignificant but... He forgot to realize that co-mingled with the multi-million peso fertilizer fund was a few million dollars of US aid to farmers. That seemingly little detail probably sealed Joc-Joc inside his present predicament.
Observers conclude that the oversight on the part of Joc-Joc was the link that swept him to involvement in the implementation of the recently promulgated policy of President Bush that the US henceforth would no longer be allowed to be a safe haven for international kleptocrats.
When Joc-Joc succumbed to the temptation to join the governmnent and savor a taste of palatial power, friends and families reportedly asked him why he had to go out to seek trouble. He was a successful businessman. He lived in a P 30-million home in a gated exclusive village. He had a happy family. He could not drive all of his expensive foreign sportscars even if he changed cars everyday. He was elected treasurer of the Rotary International.
Now he is faced with deportation to the Philippines. His US visa was cancelled.
He is being held by the American immigration authorities. He does not want to return to the Manila and so is seeking political asylum. But due to lack of basis for being granted asylum status, that seems an impossibility. Is he afraid to face the Philippine Senate which is investigating the fertilizer scam and has issued an order for his arrest for his refusal to heed its summons?
He should not be afraid of the communist New Peoples Army. When he applied first for asylum status, he claimed the NPAs are after him. The NPA right away publicly issued a disclaimer. We believe they want Joc-Joc to suffer more by making him face the music by returning to Manila because they alleged he stole money of the small farmers.
Joc-Joc hired an American law firm, reportedly one of the most expensive in the US to explore the legal maze for a way out of his predicament. We are reminded of a small rodent caught inside a small trap frantically darting everywhere trying to locate a way out to freedom.
After consuming prohibitively expensive hours devising a strategy for Joc-Joc, the American lawyers came up with a solution. They sent a feeler to the group of Filipino lawyers helping to fight Bolante’s efforts to be allowed to stay in the US. They also sent a similar feeler to Senator Magsaysay, chairman of the agriculture committee, Philippine Senate, that is investigating Joc-Joc. The feeler: Could they help Bolante get his US visa reinstated, if Joc-Joc agrees to tell all to the Philippine senators?
Senator Magsaysay and the Filipino law group headed by Harry Roque had a similar retort. They don’t trust Joc-Joc. Sing first. They’ll help afterwards.
If Joc-Joc accepts the counter offer, then there might really be a ground for granting him political asylum. As a matter of fact, one of his costly lawyers reportedly made a remark that is pregnant with dire implications.
If none takes up Joc-Joc on his desperate offer, he might just disappear. The counsel implied, of course, that Joc-Joc would become an international fugitive, go hide in a country where he could not be extradited, and be lost forever to the Senate investigators.
Life has become such a cheap commodity in the Philippines. The latest example is the close-in security of opposition Mayor Jejomar Binay, an ex-soldier who because of his calling should be much better equipped in looking after himself. But now, he appears to be the latest extrajudicial killing statistic.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
A relative or a friend’s legal advice could be wrong
|
|
|
|
MANY people rely on the advice of friends or relatives for their immigration problems, rather than consulting an attorney. After all, it’s cheaper. But many times, a friend’s “advice” is wrong, can mess up a person’s immigration situation, and can put a person in an even worse position than if they had done nothing at all. When people in this situation come to me for consultation, I ask “What law school did your friend or relative go to, that you’re following his legal advice?”
Here are some examples of wrong advice by friends that many people followed, only to find themselves in a worse situation:- A woman was applying for a visitor’s visa, so that she could attend her parents’ 50th wedding anniversary in the U.S. She was a teacher in the Philippines. She had a stable job, property, etc. However, just before she went to the Embassy for an interview, she was told by friends that she should submit a fake tax return, showing that she was making more money than she actually was, to increase her chances of success in obtaining a visitor’s visa.
Because this advice came from a friend, she listened, and bought a fake tax return from Recto Street. The Embassy instantly spotted that it was fake, and she was refused the visa.What makes the situation even worse, is that she may have had a good chance of obtaining the visitor’s visa, had she simply been truthful, and submitted genuine documents.
- People came to the U.S. as visitors and wanted to work. They were told by friends or relatives to apply for political asylum (claiming to be persecuted in the Philippines) or CSS/LULAC (claiming they had been in the U.S. since 1981, and therefore entitled to an “amnesty” green card).
By applying for political asylum or CSS/LULAC, they could get work authorization, and everything would be fine. However, in applying for these types of benefits, they had to lie and submit fake papers. But, the friends further advised that, “It’s OK, everyone does it, and the CIS will never catch on.”
Now, people are finding that their applications are being denied, and they are being placed in deportation or removal proceedings by the DHS. In many cases they were qualified for legitimate immigration benefits, such as temporary working visas (H-1B) for college graduates or green cards through Labor Certification (employer-sponsored green cards for professionals and skilled workers).But, they messed up their case, by listening to the advice of friends, instead of attorneys.
The bottom line is that when you are sick, don’t you go to a doctor? When you have a toothache, don’t you go to a dentist? Then why, when you have a legal matter, don’t you go to an attorney? If your child needed surgery, would you listen to the advice of a friend as to how to perform the surgery, or, would you go to a surgeon?
Therefore, if you have a legal matter, you should seek the advice of a reputable attorney who can possibly help you in solving it.People should know that their immigration status is perhaps the most important thing in their life in America.Not a day goes by that these people don’t think about their immigration status and how their whole future in America is up in the air or in jeopardy until they are finally in valid, legal status.
If their friends tell them to commit fraud and submit fake documents, will their friends be there when things go wrong and/or when they get placed in removal/deportation? Or will the friend say, “You need an attorney”?
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, 94080 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.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
