|
Founded in 1986
Founding Publisher/Editor:
Lito A. Gajilan
Columnists:
Atty. Michael J. Gurfinkel
Joseph G. Lariosa
Gani P. Tolentino
Ted L. Reyes
Atty. Reuben S. Seguritan
Photographers:
Butch Gata
Sheryl Garcia
The opinions expressed by columnists are their own and do not reflect the opinion of the paper nor that of the publisher
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
TWENTY-ONE years ago this week, the Filipino nation rose as one and braved bullets and stopped tanks to topple the 21-year dictatorship of the late unlamented President Marcos.
Two decades after that historic People Power Revolution ended a corrupt and despotic regime, there are rumblings anew of attempts to boot out the sitting President.
Indeed. singer-songwriter Paul Simon’s line in one of his signature songs best describes what has transpired in our homeland in that span of time: “After changes upon changes, we are more or less the same.”
When we ran Marcos out, we thought we have ended corruption, economic mismanagement and repression. Today, corruption in government has grown to a much grander scale. Five years at Malacañang and the Arroyo government still has to present a workable economic program to lift the country from the rut. Under the Arroyo regime, journalists and members of the political opposition are falling by the wayside with an impunity unheard of even during the martial law years. About 90 percent of the population are as poor as ever.
Because nothing much has changed, there are those that have begun to dismiss the EDSA Revolution of 1986 as a failed experiment, an exercise in futility. Panning over the wasted landscape dotted with images of poverty on one hand, and abuse of power on the other, one can’t help but blurt out in exasperation: “Did we really go to EDSA for this?”
But falling into this mindset is like blaming EDSA for our shortcoming as a people. The EDSA Revolution is not a failure; we as a people are. We failed EDSA. We failed to live up to the spirit of the February Revolution.
EDSA was a shining moment in our history when we as a people collectively showed what we can do if we adhere to a set of ideals and work together to make that vision a reality.
Yet, the 21st anniversary of “People Power” went virtually unnoticed in the country on Thursday, a far cry from February 22, 1986, when more than a million Filipinos packed the streets of the capital calling for the removal of dictator Ferdinand Marcos.
We were good at ending a bad chapter in our history, but we fell short on beginning a new era for the nation. We were good at destroying unjust structures, but did not follow it up with building the foundation of a better society.
Twenty-one years later, the question that we should ask ourselves is that: Is it too late to start over? Perhaps a national soul-searching is in order.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
CGFNS denial of Visa Screen may be subject to review
|
|
|
|
Editor’s Note: REUBEN S. SEGURITAN has been practicing law for over 30 years. For further information, you may call him at 212 695 5281 or log on to his website at www.seguritan.com
SOON after the announcement that Manila had been selected by the National Council of State Boards of Nursing (NCSBN) as an NCLEX test site, the Commission on Graduates of Foreign Nursing Schools (CGFNS) dropped its own bombshell. The entire batch of Filipino RNs who passed the tainted June 2006 licensing exam will be denied Visa Screen Certification. Is this the price we pay for having the NCLEX in Manila? Is this the trade-off in the very likely event that Filipino RNs decide to bypass the CGFNS certification in favor of the NCLEX?
Background
The Visa Screen Certificate is issued by the International Commission on Healthcare Professions (ICHP), a division of the CGFNS, to foreign non-physician healthcare workers after successfully going through education analysis, licensure validation and English proficiency tests. Foreign RNs must further be tested for nursing knowledge.
The Visa Screen certification fulfills a requirement under the Illegal Immigration Reform and Immigrant Responsibility Act (IIRAIRA) of 1996. Under the relevant provision, health workers seeking admission to the US will be deemed inadmissible, unless they present a certificate verifying that their education, training, license and experience meet the requirements for entry to the US; are comparable with that required for an American nurse and are authentic; and in the case of license, unencumbered. Such workers must also be proficient in spoken and written English.
The Visa Screen is required in addition to (and is not a substitute for) the NCLEX, although both practically assess the same knowledge, skill, competency and English language proficiency of the foreign RN.
Generally, Filipino RNs go through all three hurdles before they can get to work in the US—undergo CGFNS certification for the visa petition, obtain Visa Screen certification to satisfy the IIRAIRA requirement, and pass the NCLEX to be licensed to practice the nursing profession in the US.
It must be noted that the CGFNS administers both the CGFNS certification and the Visa Screen certification. The NCSBN administers the NCLEX.
Healthcare Worker Certification in the US
The law provides that the healthcare worker certification may be issued by the CGFNS (through its ICHP division) or an equivalent credentialing organization.
Credentialing organizations obtain their USCIS authorization upon proof that they comply with four criteria: first, independence and freedom from material conflicts of interest regarding whether an alien receives a visa; second, the ability to evaluate both foreign credentials and English language proficiency appropriate for the alien’s healthcare field; third, ability to keep comprehensive and current information on foreign educational institutions, ministries of health and foreign health care licensing jurisdictions; and lastly, ability to conduct an examination outside the US in cases where a predictor examination is required.
The USCIS (a branch of the Department of Homeland Security, [DHS]), has set up standards which all credentialing organizations (including the CGFNS) must satisfy for such certifications. It monitors the certification program of credentialing organizations by reviewing them and reauthorizing them every five years. CGFNS is not exempt from USCIS monitoring of its certification program.
CGFNS’s Duty
True, we cannot begrudge the CGFNS for its steadfast guardianship of the health care profession from unqualified workers. But it is also the duty of the CGFNS to ensure that qualified workers enter the US to ease the critical understaffing of health care facilities.
It is possible that the credentialing standards prescribed by law and authorized by the USCIS do not justify such a drastic reaction as the blanket Visa Screen denial on some 15,000 June 2006 passers who have been allowed to take oaths and be given licenses.
It must be noted that no effort was spared in ensuring that the June 2006 RN exam results were reviewed thoroughly by the Professional Regulatory Commission (PRC), the government agency tasked with professional licensing. The PRC actually recomputed the grades of 17,000 RN examinees. Administrative and judicial action had taken place eventually culminating in the Court of Appeals order for a re-take of the exam by 1,687 of those who passed. The Supreme Court upheld that decision.
Even the NCSBN was implicitly satisfied with the handling of the RN test fiasco. It finally decided to set up a test site in Manila despite previous concerns about security and RN competence.
Considering the RN test leakage issue had been examined thoroughly by practically all branches of the Philippine government, professional nurse organizations both in the Philippines and in the US and other concerned groups, it behooves us to question why these are not enough to convince the CGFNS that the 15,000 passers should not be barred from obtaining their Visa Screen.
The CGFNS reportedly conducted its own investigation into the RN exam leakage in Manila sometime in September 2006. Apparently, its findings during this visit led to the decision to issue the blanket denial. We have yet to find out the specific details of said investigation. How was it conducted? Who were the members of the investigation team? Were due process policies and procedures followed? What were their specific findings?
CGFNS Action Subject to Review
In the face of what appears to be the rash decision to deny all Visa Screen applications of the 2006 RN batch from the Philippines, we should be reminded that the CGFNS is not the ultimate authority on the healthcare workers’ certification.
Under the law, the CGFNS is subject to ongoing review by the DHS and its credentialing status may be terminated for noncompliance with the statute’s universal standards.
Although CGFNS has been designated in the law as an organization authorized to issue healthcare worker certifications, there is nothing that will prevent the DHS from determining whether CGFNS’s authority to issue certification should be revoked.
For a matter that has the most profound impact on the 15,000 Filipino nurses, as well as on the pressing need for more RNs in the US, the CGFNS should disclose and explain fully its reasons for the blanket Visa Screen denial.
In the course of its ongoing review of the credentialing programs, the DHS may look into “adverse information provided by state licensing boards.” Manila can certainly submit such adverse information. Filipino nurses adversely affected by the denial can also do the same.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Oh! Bama: The compelling candidate
|
|
|
|
SPRINGFIELD, Illinois -- Prediction for the temperature on the eve of Senator Barack Obama’s launch of his bid for presidency in Springfield, Illinois was on the teens (Fahrenheit), three times below the freezing point of 32 degrees. The prospect of attending the event in an “open field” as against an indoor environment was daunting. It would have been very easy to miss the event by just watching it live on TV. But the chances of watching history unfold right before one’s very eyes were compelling.
So, I decided to join a television (ABS-CBN International) crew composed of Ging Reyes, Don Tagala and Cris Panlubasan in a van driven by our friend and colleague Marlon L. Pecson, secretary of the National Press Club of the Philippines in the United States (NPC-Phil. U.S.A.), to Springfield nearly 200 miles away from my home base in Chicago, Illinois.
Because Mr. Obama’s speech starts at 10 a.m. on Saturday (Feb. 10), we have to leave Chicago at 4 a.m. to make it at 7 a.m. I have been used to a very cold weather in Chicago during the last 20 years. But the moment we arrived at Springfield, I started shivering. It was possible that I might not have been properly bundled-up. I even forgot to wear my thermal underwear. But I suddenly felt warm when I saw Cris, who just came from the Philippines, not complaining.
With a cup of coffee and a couple of doughnuts for our breakfast that we partook as we pulled away from Chicago, there was no more time for us to have another round of snacks when we got to Springfield. Particularly, after we noticed that there was a long line of journalists getting their accreditation. I even had a problem with my press ID, which was already expired. It would have been more frustrating if I was turned away because I was taking my ID for granted.
523 News Media Reps
When we were finally allowed in, after a few minutes of haggling with the press staff, there were already hundreds of reporters and cameramen setting up their own cameras and guarding their spots. Actually, there were 523. The sight of huge and expensive camera equipments was jaw-dropping. When people started filing in, I completely forgot the cold weather and my empty stomach.
We were able to say hello to Sen. Dick Durbin, who came up to the elevated press gallery. There were also familiar TV journalists, among them Carol Marin of NBC-5 Chicago and columnist of Chicago Sun-Times.
The blaring music and a staff of Mr. Obama tossing caps to parts of a crowd, who were fighting to catch the protective gears, once in a while occupied our attention. And so, with the stage hand testing the microphone.
Then, at about 9:15, a group of singers climbed up the stage and belted several heart-warming numbers that kept us further from shutting out the chilly weather. This was the Choir from the Abundant Faith Christian Center based in Springfield. They first sang “America the Beautiful,” then, followed it up with “Lift Us Up.”
The Choir was followed by the singing of the National Anthem by Debbie Ross, also of Springfield.
At about 9:45, Senator Durbin went up the stage to introduce Senator Obama, The Man of the Hour.
It would have been almost 10 a.m., when Mr. Obama walked slowly towards the stage as crowd was reaching to shake his hands as he moved towards the podium.
Lincoln’s Second Coming?
It was about 10:20, when Mr. Obama started his 20-minute, 2,592-word speech capped by a paragraph the members of the press corps came for him to say:
“It was here, in Springfield, where North, South, East and West come together that I was reminded of the essential decency of the American people - where I came to believe that through this decency, we can build a more hopeful America. And that is why, in the shadow of the Old State Capitol, where Lincoln once called on a divided house to stand together, where common hopes and common dreams still, I stand before you today to announce my candidacy for President of the United States.”
As Mr. Obama, who delivered an eloquent speech amid wild cheers and applause, and the American people can make his “improbable quest” a reality, it will not be a wonder if he can replicate the political “life of a tall, gangly, self-made Springfield lawyer,” who made it to the White House.
But from the looks and feels of it, the fact that 15- to 17,000 came to Springfield that frigid day and braved the chilly weather just to see and hear Mr. Obama announce his candidacy speaks volumes that what I was witnessing was history unfolding right before my very eyes.
(lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
MANILA -- Is anyone keeping track of bills creating new cities that jack-knifed their way through Congress before it adjourned?
In 1991, we had 60 cities, many of dubious viability. By 2003, the number almost doubled to 114. After Taguig, Santa Rosa and Meycauayan joined the club, the total rose to 117. This “strained the national government’s ability to finance such local government units,” the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank noted. But “the small size of LGUs prevent them from generating their own resources.”
This Congress approved 12 more “city candidates”: Bogo and Carcar (Cebu); Baybay (Leyte); Catbalogan (Samar); Lamitan (Basilan); Tandag (Surigao del Sur); Batac (Ilocos Norte); Bayugan (Agusan del Sur); Cabadbaran (Agusan del Norte) and Borongan (Eastern Samar).
These 12 will slice bigger internal revenue allotments (IRAs), chortled Sen. Alfredo Lim. “If these municipalities cannot even manage to meet the basic income requirement (set by Republic Act No. 9009) how can they be expected to perform and deliver as cities?” the League of Cities of the Philippines snapped back. “The vested interests of a few are the only ingredients needed to derail a rational and sensible law.”
The 12 got this far because Congress watered down RA 9009’s criteria for minimum economic tools. The entrance fee to “the club” rose from P20 million to P100 million in, mark this well, locally-generated income.
Taguig, Santa Rosa and Meycauayan meet standards on generating local taxes without a whimper, thereby creating a larger economic pie. The 12 will help themselves from the common IRA larder. But that extra will be dunned from the IRAs of others: financially strapped Muslim provinces or four-and fifth-class towns. This is a “beggar your neighbor” policy.
IRAs are not a permanent crutch, a UN study points out. They’re to give elbowroom for LGUs to flex their local revenue-collecting muscles.
But IRAs proved addictive and the reverse happened. IRAs used to cover half of local budgets. Today, they account for P0.63 of every P1.00 budgeted.
“Unconditional grants” invariably sap accountability. And IRAs are not linked to performance. Thus, the share of locally raised taxes has shriveled, from P0.31 out of every P1.00 in the mid-1980s to only P0.20 today. And it is still shrinking.
Few shell cities become “engines of growth.” Instead, they remain hooked on IRAs and slurp from national pork barrels. Already, these cities are hard-pressed to provide residents with even basic services, since they’re loath to tax idle land and raise levies from business, etc. Officials curry favor from voters by subsidizing water, etc.
Population, meanwhile, ratchets the pressure. Migrants fleeing rural penury flood into their slums. In 2005, six in 10 Filipinos lived in urban sprawl. By 2030, urban residents could crest at 85 million.
Mumbling “equal protection of law” Congress exempted the 12 from complying with RA 9009’s criteria for high performance. It gutted standards down to mediocrity. Is this just the election year virus? Or is it a deeper national canker?
Do we meet the demand for high performance by lowering hurdles instead? A shortage in classrooms was “solved” by juggling statistics on class sizes. In National Elementary Achievement Tests, poor performance led to scaling the passing mark down to 50 percent, then doling a “bonus” of 60 points. “This meant the criterion passing score was 37.5 percent,” Philippine Human Development Report notes. “Whom are we kidding? Self-delusion sells short the efforts of other cities that, by dint of hard work and performance of its officials and citizens, are emerging as ‘development path-blazers.”’
For their packages of best governance practices, Bacolod, Naga and Iloilo are cited in the latest Asian Development Bank study of “urbanization and stability” in 12 Asian countries. Among “key lessons” these three cities offer, the ADB cites the following:- “Strict enforcement of the rule of law is common to the three cities.” (No vigilantes for summary execution, as in Davao and Cebu.)
- “All three cities underscore the active role of civil society in undertaking numerous development projects with local governments. (They systematically used) policy instruments, such as the Local Government Code and city ordinances, to open avenues not only for citizen participation but also for encouraging private sector development.”
- Naga City’s “Citizens Charter” increased transparency and accountability of government. Procurement bids are publicized and officials respond, instead of ignoring, questions by citizens. Local revenues increased 12 times. Bacolod whittled down its IRA dependence by increasing its tax base. Infant and maternal mortality are down. And so is the crime rate. And the Iloilo Metropolitan Development Council, through patient consultative efforts over a decade, put in place a coherent development plan.
- Reforms were possible through vision and commitment of local chief executives. But they were not Lone Ranger-type mayors or governors. “Citizens’ empowerment was part of the agenda of the three city governments.”
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
The fate of the Philippines after May 7
|
|
|
|
THE national elections of May 07 place the Philippines at a crucial crossroad. What will be the fate of the country depending on its outcome?
What happens if the administration of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo scores a widespread win with its candidates? You can forget about her impeachment. This was the primary reason why GMA worked hard to get the May election cancelled or postponed through a constitutional amendment. But she lost. That’s why the fortune of her partner, Speaker Jose de Venecia sanked. Now the political sunshine of Sunshine Joe has dimmed.
But a victory of her party in May may achieve the same thing. Her reign will continue. And there’s no doubt that if still needed, with impeachment no longer a threat, the pursuit of a parliamentary form of government may resume. With impeachment out of the way, some amount of political stability may be achieved.
The US it turned out is not ready to allow one of the few remaining democracies in Asia that it has sponsored to be threatened. It reportedly made known its sentiment that democratic elections remain high in its priotity, together with the protection of the lives of its citizens and American businesses. And the culture of politics is deeply embedded in the Filipino psyche to be given up just like that. After all, politics is a national industry in the country. It moves the economy.
The political opposition will continue. With diminished decibels. True to form, the trapos will be reenergized. Political butterflies will multiply. There will be calls for unification. The criticism against extrajudicial kills are expected to continue. Although the killings may subside, the prosecution of the perpetrators will be forgotten.GMA’s pursuit of her economic goals will continue. When it will yield the desired objectives is in doubt given the basic weaknesses and lack of infrastructures corruption has wreaked on the system.
The contribution of the conglomerate of Filipino Chinese tycoons to the economy will continue. These Chinoys have diversified by setting up factories in mainland China. Chinese-Philippine cooperation may even continue and increase, especially since China remain insensitive to criticism of its human rights violations.
One note of optimism is should GMA develop a sense of history and for her own sake, decide a worthwhile legacy for her countrymen.
What happens if the opposition prevail in the May elections? GMA’s impeachment willl happen. And worse, plunder cases will be filed by the gross against GMA and her kin and against her powerful cabal of military and police generals. But this is something that is difficult to imagine happening. It is so difficult to imagine that those affected will ever allow it to come to pass. We instinctively expect that something unexpected will intervene to prevent it from happenig.
Should both sides emerge from the May elections without a clear victory, then the country will face a prolonged period of political and economic problems. A period muddling through may be espected until that time when external factors become juxtaposed to resolve the abnormal situations that GMA’s reign has brought about.
No matter how hard we try, we find it hard to imagine that the lone strength of the country, the strength of the peso brought about by hordes of Filipnos deserting their land of birth to seek livelihoo abroad, is an undiluted blessing for which we should be grateful.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Michael J. Gurfinkel has been an attorney for over 26 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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
