|
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 New York Times published a story on Sunday, October 22, about Latinos who work for fellow Latinos and find themselves being treated unfairly and shabbily. “For Latinos, familiar faces may not be friendly bosses,” the article’s headline read.
The article may be about Latinos, but the gist of the story also strikes a sensitive chord within the Filipino American community. Far too often, we hear of Filipinos taking advantage of their fellow Filipinos. As recently as May this year, a wealthy Filipino couple was found guilty of forcing a Filipina to work for them as their maid and paying her only $200 a month for almost 20 years.
For many Filipinos, working for fellow Filipinos is a preferred option. For others, it is because of familiarity with the same culture and language. For some, though, especially the undocumented, it is their only option. That is why it comes as a shock for low-salaried workers -- such as domestics and restaurant workers -- that their compatriots would take advantage of them.
Last issue, we took to task the newly elected officers of the three major Filipino American organizations -- the National Federation of Filipino American Associations (NaFFAA), the Philippine Independence Day Council Inc. (PIDCI) and the Philippine American Friendship Committee (PAFCOM) -- and challenged them “to advance the interests of the financially struggling Filipinos” and “act as the champions of the downtrodden members of the community which they profess to serve.”
This is an opportunity for the new leaderships of these organizations to prove that they are true to their words. For starters, they can come up with programs meant to find out the real score within the Filipino community.
Are Filipino nannies, baby-sitters, cooks, cleaners, restaurant workers paid justly by their Filipino employers? Are they provided with health care? Do they get paid for overtime work? These are some questions that need to be answered.
Leaders of these three organizations may be shocked by what they might find out, but that’s the way to start an action: gather the facts.
The truth may hurt, but it’s the truth nonetheless, and something must be done to correct the situation.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
PHNOM PENH, Cambodia -- The administration of Gani Puertollano II, or GP2 as some folks refer to this year’s Philippine Independence Day Council, Inc. (PIDCI), may have celebrated Halloween in advance. Failing to hold its first board meeting due to a lack of quorum, it decided to strike back with a trick and a threat of its own.
On October 20, a “secretary” sent e-mails to some board members informing them of a result of a review of the 2006-2007 membership roll. According to the letter, a finding shows that “several members of the board have fallen out of compliance, or are not compliant with certain provisions of the corporation’s By-laws governing membership.”
In the letter, it cites Art. III, Sec. 2, and Paragraph C of the PIDCI by-laws, which says: “Board members must be a regular member organization and verified in writing by any officer of that member organization.”
The letter then advises recipients that it was to their “best interest, and that of PIDCI, if you correct this infraction by obtaining a letter attesting to your membership in an organization that is on the current membership roll of the PIDCI.”
Finally, the letter summons recipients that it was “to your best advantage if you provided PIDCI with this “verification in writing” at the time of the adjourned Annual Board Meeting on October 25, to remain in good standing as a member of the Board.”
In my view, the e-mail, sent by a supposed “secretary” that was not even elected by board members as required in the by-laws, could be considered a trick and a threat. It is also not necessary as it was blatantly targeting those that were not in attendance at a board meeting which was adjourned. And worse, it is ill-advised and divisive.
Such action proves what was said in this paper’s editorial, “Not a good time.” It said: “Holding an election per se is not bad, but every election with the Filipino American community is characterized by mudslinging and controversies. The net effect is that rather than unite the Filipinos here, these elections serve to divide further the already fractious Filipino American community.”
Further, the editorial notes that the “root cause of the problem is: Ambition, vanity and power.”
The letter is a shameless act of insecurity and definitely igniting a controversy. Is GP2 concerned that new board members may be giving it a difficult time to govern? Is GP2 bent on purging board members which it thinks may not be collaborating with the administration?
Is sending a notice that is perceived as threatening the only way Puertollano can deal with some board members who may not like his leadership style and management? Can he not spend time to talk to board members personally and share his vision? Is he able to draw himself as a “magnet of unity” and a “catalyst for change”?
Mac Villapando, president of the Quezon Province Association, writes in an e-mail: “If the goal of our community leaders is to gain unity among the constituents, lousy tactics to get rid of non-conformists will not work.”
He also believes that verification of membership status of a board member should be required from everyone and “not single out a particular member.” I totally agree with his suggestion. Requiring verification from everyone is fair, objective and transparent.
For his part, Paul Versoza, who was surprised at this ugly turn of events despite showing his magnanimity right after the elections, responded to the “secretary’s” e-mail saying that “this action is a mere silly act of vindictiveness.”
In a postscript to his response, he added that he is a member of the Federation of Philippine Societies of New Jersey, the Bayanihan Club of Union, the National Filipino American Association of New Jersey, of which he claims, he and Puertollano are members.
Lolita Gillberg, another board member who received the same notice, says that the Association of Filipino American Accountants, of which she claims she is a member, renewed its membership by paying the $35 dues.
In an e-mail responding to my query, she wrote: “You can even ask Sofia Abad.” She also said that she voted on behalf of the organization using the proxy form.
While obtaining a letter to prove their membership in an organization may appear simple and effortless, the effect of a letter which sounded threatening was the trick to spark a controversy at this early stage of GP2. As some folks says, this action just broke the camel’s back.
What was the motive behind the letter sent by the “secretary” of GP2? Was there really a full review of the membership roster? If this was true, why then are Gillberg and Versoza claiming otherwise?
Or is the real purpose of the letter a trick and a threat?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Why this Erap DVD should not be banned
|
|
|
|
CHICAGO, Illinois – If a picture paints a thousand words, then movies should be painting millions.
This could be the reason the administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is sticking by the decision of the Movie and Television Review and Classification Board (MTRCB) which gave the 52-minute DVD documentary of detained President Joseph Estrada (also known as Erap) entitled, “To Live for the Masses,” an “X” rating, which means it is banned from public exhibition.
So it now appears that Mr. Estrada, who has lived by his countless and numerous award-winning movies that launched his political career to the highest position in the land, may yet die by the his latest “DVD.”
Although, the Arroyo board of censors must be leaning on the Presidential Decree No. 1986 signed by President Marcos on Oct. 5, 1985 for taking the latest Estrada starrer off the television or motion picture screens of the Filipino viewers, they have not yet formally cited the reason for banning it.
A Marcos decree
According to the Marcos’ decree, the board can approve or disapprove “exhibition and/or television broadcast of the motion pictures, television programs,” if in their judgement, “the board applying contemporary Filipino cultural values as standard, are objectionable for being immoral, indecent, contrary to law and/or good customs, injurious to the prestige of the Republic of the Philippines or its people, or with a dangerous tendency to encourage the commission of violence or of wrong or crime, such as but not limited to:- Those which tend to incite subversion, insurrection, rebellion or sedition against the State, or otherwise threaten the economic and/or political stability of the State;
- Those which tend to undermine the faith and confidence of the people in their government and/or the duly constituted authorities;
- Those which are libelous or defamatory to the good name and reputation of any person, whether living or dead; and
- Those which may constitute contempt of court or of any quasi-judicial tribunal, or pertain to matter which are sub-judice in nature.”
The same decree says that the decision of the board of censors is appealable to the President, whose decision shall be final.
As a result of the board’s decision, Mr. Estrada and his supporters have clandestinely been distributing copies of the DVD documentary, a copy of which was handed to me by an Estrada friend living in Chicago .
I watched it. But I did not see anything objectionable that was in the documentary. The documentary contains everything the Filipino people already know about the life of Mr. Estrada, which has been an open book.
Father of the masses
In fact, this was the third documentary that Mr. Estrada was able to produce while he is in detention. The first was entitled, “Father of the Masses” (Ama ng Masa), which was produced in 2001, shortly after he was ousted, depicting his ouster.
Second was entitled, “And the Truth Shall Set You Free(2004)” (Ang Katotohanan ang Magpapalaya sa Inyo), a 58-minute film that disproves the charges heaped against him by the Arroyo government.
I would say this third documentary is a chip of two documentaries.
Nothing special.
In fact, the more the board will ban it, the more interest it will generate. Perhaps, Mrs. Arroyo must have forgotten it already that when she was about 18 years old, her father, former President Diosdado Macapagal, banned in 1965 the showing of the Marcos’ bio, “Iginuhit ng Tadhana” (Destined), which made a martyr out Marcos and Marcos used it to beat her father in the presidential election.
As I said this latest documentary of Mr. Estrada is no different from the previous two others. But if Mrs. Arroyo will insist on banning the documentary, a small segment in the film might arouse curiosity.
Conspirator generals
I am referring to a portion of what appeared to be a gathering of friends in the Manila Peninsula on Feb. 21, 2001, in what appeared to be an “appreciation party.” In that party hosted by the Council on Philippine Affairs (COPA), Mrs. Arroyo acknowledged the help of some military generals, whom she said, helped her oust Estrada a month before on January 20.
Mrs. Arroyo named her conspirators as Gen. Larry Mendoza, Col Teddy Garcia, Gen. Espinoza and Retired Gen. Briones (?) and Art Carillo and Gen Braganza.” General Mendoza was awarded with a Cabinet post – secretary of the Department of Transportation. Perhaps, Mrs. Arroyo also has rewards for other generals.
If this is not incriminating enough to merit an investigation, I don’t know what is.
(lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Critical moment at Supreme Court
|
|
|
|
|
THIS week is a critical moment for the Supreme Court. All the various issues that have surfaced in the last several years are being funneled so to speak into the Supreme Court.
Its combined significance is focused in the matter of the Charter Change up for decision in the SC. Like the physical characteristics of a liquid flow being compressed and constricted in a narrower channel, it is exhibiting some turbulence. The Chief Justice himself has described the forces at work by admitting they are buffeted by pressures from the opposing forces in favor and against Cha Cha.
Until recent times, the SC was perceived as an ally of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo. In fact, even the legitimacy issue of her presidency has involved the high court. Lately, however the SC has exhibited a change of hues in its decisions on matters interpreted as relevant to her fight for political survival. This is the reason that in the betting going on the coffee shops and other opinion fora, there are those who increasingly are increasing the odds in favor of the anti-Cha Cha.
More and more are saying that the justices are likely to seize this chance to clean up their tarnished image and save for themselves the precious legacy of coming out heroes rather than villains when the country’s history is finally written.
Over the last several months, the excessive arrogance displayed by the administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo against her political foes has been unprecedented. Political survival at all costs is clearly the policy. The flexibility of the law is tested beyond limits. Public opinion is totally ignored. GMA has become insensitive even to international criticism. She has kept her travel schedule, just avoiding as much as possible nations critical of the Philippine record of extrajudicial killing and human rights violations.
Justifying bad governance with so-called economic achievements that legitimate economists, both here and abroad, continually deny has become strident to the ears.
Bigger and bigger cases of plunder keep being discovered, the latest being the humongous billion peso rice scandal in the department of education. The way things go on, you could say nobody cares any more about retribution. In fact, one wonders whether they think the Philippines has any tomorrow at all.
Do they think the Philippines will disintegrate with the next North Korean nuclear bomb?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
More people get conscientized
|
|
|
|
|
AS more and more abuses are committed in the name of governance, it is becoming more apparent that more and more people are developing a conscience.
This is a good sign that encourages Filipinos not to lose hope.
Who’d ever think that at the height of one such case of abuse, the most recent shameless case of utter disregard of decency by Ombudsgirl Merceditas Gutierrez who could not find an iota of evidence against the Commission on Election for their approval of the illegal purchase of the voting machines, inspite of a contrary findings by the Supreme Court, that almost the entire nation would descend upon her and question her resolution of the case. And that the Supreme Court would stand by their decision against the election commissioners.
This has been preceded by a series of rulings by the Supreme Court which has done a lot to make it recover from their tarnished image because of the heavily criticized unconstitutional ouster of former President Estrada.
These rulings against Gloria Macapagal Arroyo include the Calibrated Preemptive Response used to thwart rallies, the Executive Order 464 or gag order, and the latest, the first section of Executive Order No. 1 which the Presidential Commission on Good Government attempted to use against the Senate but which the Supreme Court struck down as invalid.
Aray! Aruy! Ouch! Could this be the start of the process we would call the “awakening.”
This last mentioned Supreme Court decision in effect told PCGG Chairman Sabio and company they cannot dodge the Senate. They must heed the Senate subpoenas and answer all the senators’ questions to explain their actuations at the PCGG which are being investigated.
Battering ram hits Makati Mayor Binay
A few columns ago, we wrote that Gloria Macapagal Arroyo’s government has fashioned and started to use a bully’s weapon against her political enemies. We called it the battering ram. Something like that was used to get Pasay City Mayor Peewee Trinidad, one of the opposotion’s local official that is a thorn on GMA’s side.
Trinidad and his councilors were suspended on allegedly trumped up charges. Yesterday, the battering ram hit Binay, a much more formidable opposition leader.
As we write this piece, Makati City, where the Philippines’ Wall Street is located, is tense, with the expected political standoff. Mayor Binay, although merely a city mayor, has national stature as opposition leader. Opposition leaders always feel free to rally against GMA, unlike in other neighboring cities and municipalities, where the rules on permits to rally are strictly enforced by Malacanang allies by the Philippine National Police and even by the military. Strictly no permit, no rally.
As national elections approach next year, the reports are aplenty that the battering ram will selectively hit all local officials with the opposition. Malacanang said it was not political harrassment. But if one looked into the charges brought against Trinidad and Binay, they looked trumped up. GMA allies have more serious cases against them and the battering ram spared them. No suspension.
The situation in Makati City is so serious it merited an advisory from the US embassy asking Americans to exercise caution. Binay, a dyed in the wool anti-Marcos activist and Cory Aquino follower, got out his mothballed military fatigues, and is now sporting it, surrounded by thousands of followers. A big standoff is developing.
This afternoon, jeepney drivers, sympathizing with Binay, are reportedly quitting the roads. They are reportedly surrounding the City Hall to protect their idol. An injunction has been filed with and is being awaited from the Court of Appeals.
Everybody is watching what will happen in Makati, because whatever it is has a consequence on business. During the attempted coup against Cory Aquino in l989 where some shooting took place in the heart of the business district, it was said that the business downturn that followed set back the country’s economy by at least three years.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The November 2006 Priority Dates
|
|
|
|
MOST Employment and Family-Based Priority dates moved forward (or advanced) in November 2006, except for nurses and physical therapists, whose priority date retrogressed (or moved backwards) from “current” to October 1, 2005.
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 14 days, from November 1, 1991 to November 15, 1991. The Third Preference Category, F-3 (married sons and daughters of United States citizens) moved forward by six months and seven days, from August 1, 1990 to February 8, 1991.
The Fourth Preference, F-4 (brothers and sisters of United States citizens) moved forward by one month, from April 1, 1984 to May 1, 1984.
Petitions by Green Card Holders:
The Second Preference Category, F-2A (Spouse and minor children of green card holders) moved forward by four months and 10 days, from April 22, 2001 to September 1, 2001.
The Second Preference, F-2B (unmarried sons and daughters, over 21 years of age, of green card holders) moved forward by 24 days, from July 22, 1996 to August 15, 1996.
Petitions by Employers:
The Third Preference (professionals and skilled workers) of Employment-Based Petitions (Labor Certification) moved forward by 2 months, from May 1, 2002 to July 1, 2002.
The Third Preference Schedule A (nurses/physical therapists) of Employment-Based Petitions retrogressed, from being “current” to October 1, 2005. This means that nurses and physical therapists can no longer file their petition and adjustment of status at the same time. Only nurses and physical therapists with priority dates earlier than October 1, 2005 are eligible for adjustment of status, immigrant visas, or green cards.
The Third Preference (non-skilled workers) moved forward by 4 months, from January 1, 2001 to May 1, 2001.
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.), you would have to wait until it 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, 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.)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
