|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
THIS Monday’s congressional and local elections is significant not in terms of the meaningful changes it may bring to improve the situation in the country. What will be remembered from this political exercise is how the people, even the candidates themselves, have lost their faith and respect for the integrity of the process and the sanctity of the ballot.
This is not to say that this is the first time that the public in general have exhibited indifference to the electoral process. Sure, this is neither the first time that politicians running for elective posts have displayed their mockery of the people’s will and the voting process.
But this year will go down in history as the election wherein the general lack of belief in the process has sunk to an all-time low.
As of the last count, at least 100 people have been killed in election-related violence. The National Police have reported that more candidates in this Monday’s elections have been killed compared to any other Philippine polls.
Elections in the Philippines have always been heated and often deadly; candidates employ goons with guns for protection and coercion. Election season virtually transforms the whole archipelago into a wild, wild west frontier. But unlike in previous elections when the guns were trained at supporters of political rivals, this year’s polls have seen the increasing regularity of candidates themselves being the targets of attacks and being killed.
What is disturbing is the fact that most of the attacks on electoral candidates were carried out in front of witnesses and in broad daylight. The goons and assassins apparently have no fear, whatsoever of being caught and punished. It is obvious now that the culture of impunity that has claimed the lives of hundreds of journalists and leftist activists is fast catching up with some powers-that-be as well as some political wannabes.
By killing their political rivals, politician-warlords are now shouting out loud that they are not really interested in hearing the voice of the people, nor of respecting the sovereign will of the electorate.
As for the voting public, their lack of belief in the electoral process appears to have been more pronounced than ever in this Monday’s exercise. The reception is ominously lukewarm, and have become resigned to the fact that whoever gets reelected will have no impact whatsoever in their lives.
Take the millions of Filipinos working and residing overseas. Less than 200,000 registered to exercise their right through the Overseas Absentee Voting. Of that number, less that 10 percent actually cast their votes.
It does not restore the public’s faith in the process when the general belief is that there really is no choice in this week’s election, especially in the Senate race. On one hand, you have candidates who would do the bidding of President Gloria Arroyo. On the other hand, you have bets allied with deposed President Joseph Arroyo. What kind of an option is that when your choice is between a camp whose leader is generally viewed as a cheat and a despot and another whose godfather was booted out for corruption?
Is there still hope that all these can change? The answer lies in all of us.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Outline of immigration reform bill under way
|
|
|
|
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
WHEN the Democrats edged out Republicans in the 110th Congress, many immigrant rights advocates where optimistic about immigration reform. As legislators focus on controversial aspects of the issue, however, the initial optimism is giving way to grim projections that immigration reform might be railroaded again, this time, by the 2008 election hoopla.
Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) promised that the debate will begin in May 14, but so far there has been no bill drawn up that the Senate can deliberate on.
As with the previous Congress, the sticky issue was, and remains to be, the earned legalization proposal that will encourage some 12 million undocumented immigrants out of the shadows.
Apparently, the objective of the proponents of immigration reform is to obtain the broadest support across political lines for the legislation. In this effort, the role of President George Bush as the figurehead of the Republican Party, is crucial. It will be recalled that conservative Republicans were few but very vocal about any measure that resembles amnesty, insisting that lawbreakers must not be rewarded with a path to citizenship.
Recent reports suggest that Bush aides and a few senators are in secret talks that will hopefully lead to an outline of the immigration reform bill, which by far, falls short of what comprehensive reform advocates had been hoping for.
For one, the outline echoes the enforcement-first tenor being pushed by the conservatives in Congress. It contains trigger events before earned legalization can even be implemented. The triggers include tighter border security measures, including a high-tech ID system that includes temporary workers.
The Associated Press reports that these border security triggers can take up to two years to complete thereby failing to address the urgency of comprehensive immigration reform.
Secondly, earned legalization provisions are unrealistic and onerous. Undocumented immigrants, according to the AP report, would still have to leave the country and pay large fines before their status is legalized. Needless to say, the undocumented population can hardly be enticed out of the shadows with this “leave-first” proviso.
Thirdly, the immigration reform outline pushed by the White House, the New York Times reports, will be focused on supplying foreign essential workers to fire up the US economy. At the same time, immigration of parents and siblings will be “sharply reduce(d).”
Should this policy shift push through, Filipino Americans will be among the hardest hit.. Considering more than a majority of immigrants from the Philippines enter the US on family-based sponsorships, this proposal will hardly be a welcome development for many Filipino Americans.
At any rate, the negotiations are still going on and the details may still alter the outline. The big question for the nation is whether the 110th Congress will be able to deliver a comprehensive immigration reform law soon enough to make a meaningful impact on the economy and on American society.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taiwan, A U.S. Territory?
|
|
|
|
CHICAGO, Illinois – It’s amazing how unity and money can buy.
The class action suit filed by a thousand Taiwan residents who pooled resources to bring a lawsuit before the United States District Court of Columbia in Washington may yet end their longings for identity.
They would like to be declared U.S. nationals because they are part of the U.S. territory.
In an effort to settle their status whether they are a “sovereign” or a province of the Mainland China, a group of Taiwanese residents called Taiwan Nation Party, led by Dr. Roger C.S. Lin of Gaoxiong City, filed a complaint for Declaratory Relief, asking the court to declare that when Japan, which owned Taiwan prior to World War II, surrendered after the war, Japan gave up its territorial rights over Formosa (now Taiwan) and Pescadores (a group of 90 small islands covering an area of 141 square kilometers near Taiwan) and entrusted these islands to the Allied Powers, led by the United States.
China owned Taiwan in 1683
In 1683, Formosa (Taiwan) was part of Chinese Empire, following the fall of the Ming Dynasty and rise of the Qing Dynasty. After the 1894 war between Japan and China, Japan defeated China and the two countries signed a peace treaty known as the Treaty of Shimonoseki on April 17, 1895. In this treaty, China ceded Formosa (Taiwan) and nearby islands (Pescadores) to Japan “in perpetuity and full sovereignty” and held title to its territory.
Since Taiwan and Pescadores were never turned over to any country, including Mainland China, by the Allied Powers (composed of the United States, China, Great Britain, and the Soviet Union) after World War II, these islands are now trust territories of the United States because the U.S. is still “the Principal occupying Power” of Taiwan under the Treaty of Peace with Japan signed on Sept. 8, 1951 in San Francisco, California.
MacArthur’s order
The plaintiffs cited the General Order No. 1 issued by Gen. Douglas MacArthur as Supreme Commander for the Allied Powers on Sept. 2, 1945, under which, according to United States Secretary of State John Foster Dulles, the “Republic of China was entrusted with authority over [Formosa and the Pescadores] as agent for the Allied Powers. Such trust on behalf of the Allied Powers remains in effect today.” The Order never gave China “full sovereignty” over Taiwan and Pescadores.
According to the lawsuit, the “Allied Powers originally intended to give China sovereignty over Taiwan but they later affirmatively changed their intention.”
It said the drafts dated Aug. 5, 1947, and Jan. 8, 1948, provided: “Japan hereby cedes to China in full sovereignty the island of Taiwan (Formosa) and adjacent minor islands (Pescadores).”
Missing in final draft
But in the final draft of the Peace Treaty, the lawsuit contends, “full sovereignty” over Taiwan and the Pescadores Islands was never transferred from Japan to China. Instead, Art. 23 of the Treaty “designated the United States as the ‘principal occupying Power” with respect to the territories covered by the Treaty, including ‘Formosa and Pescadores.’
For its part, the Defendant United States asked the court to dismiss the complaint because the matter is a “non-justiciable political question” that belongs to the executive, not judicial branch of government, to decide; plaintiffs lack standing that their alleged “legal limbo” is not caused by any unlawful action by the United States; none of the statutes cited by the plaintiffs waive the United States sovereign immunity; and that General MacArthur’s order “did not create a private right of action.”
And the nationality case filed Fr. Prisco Entines also in the same court asking the court to declare all Filipinos born in the Philippines during the American Occupation of the Philippines as U.S. citizens or nationals like Puerto Ricans can benefit from Taiwan’s lawsuit. Father Entines can cite identical legal precedents in this case filed by the Law Offices of Charles H. Camp in Washington, D.C. on behalf of the Taiwan Nation Party.
(lariosa_jos@sbcglobal.net)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
WE’VE entered the home stretch of the mid-term elections’ campaign. So what?, some observers snort. Whoever wins changes nothing in our lives.
We’ll probably be cheated blind again, pessimists wail. That was the case with post World War II polls in 1949, Marcos’ farcical snap elections in 1986. Legitimacy issues bug the 2004 balloting. The administration insists it won, but admits sotto voce, not by the wide margins it first claimed.
“Democracy substitutes elections, by the incompetent many, for appointment by the corrupt few,” George Bernard Shaw snapped. The “corrupt few” here are the 50 plus family dynasties, from Singsons of Ilocos Sur to the Ecleos of Dinagat. They’d monopolize public office.
So, is there any difference between the Macapagals and Estradas? Toss in the Marcoses for good measure. None has been jailed for 14 years of dictatorial kleptocracy. And didn’t the same pod hold United Opposition’s Rep. Allan Peter Cayetano who peddled false claims about “secret German bank accounts of the First Gentleman and Team Unity’s Rep. Prospero Pichay who overspent for election propaganda?
As a result, “the middle class essentially decided to boycott this election,” says the cerebral Inquirer columnist Manuel L. Quezon III. “In part, this is out of despair over being unable to influence election results”.
Indeed, within the all-too-slowly growing middle class, there’s festering dissatisfaction over police lineup characters as candidates backed by dynasties.
Pampanga elections offered a “quarry-tax-theft king” or a “jueteng queen”, until citizens compelled a reluctant Father Ed Panlilio, to take off his priestly robes, and run. In La Union, the choice is limited to which generation of Ortegas to choose from.
“Boycott” entered the dictionary courtesy of an 1897 avaricious English land owner. Charles Boycott was ostracized for refusing to trim his extortionate rental rates. Since then, washing of hands became the narrow dictionary construct of this word.
Did Quezon III use “boycott” in the literal sense of citizens “refusing, in concert, to have anything to do” with May 14 polls? “The middle will play a crucial role in rendering a verdict on the conduct, and thus the legitimacy of the ( May 14 ) elections,” he predicted.
This dissatisfaction, notwithstanding, Filipino voters cast their ballots, in elections over the last 56 years, at rates far better many established democracies, says the study:. “Voter Turnout Rates From A Comparative Perspective.” Written by Rafael Lopez Pintor, Kate Sullivan and Maria Gratshew, this analysis examined records of 1,256 congressional polls and 412 presidential elections in 169 countries.
Turnout by Filipino voters crested at 81 percent. Compare that to 48 percent for Americans, 69 percent for Japanese and 74 percent for British and French. (Last week’s Paris election was exceptional. The heated contest, between Nicolas Sarkozy and Segolene Royal, for Jacques Chirac’s post, spurred 85 percent of French voters to show up at voting precincts.)
Voter turn out, in Australia and Singapore, tower at 93 percent. But they are among nations that have compulsory voting laws.
Belguim adopted such a law way back in 1892, as did Argentina in 1914. Venezuela and the Netherlands abolished compulsory measures. In some countries, citizen may register to vote or not But once registered, they court sanctions if they play truant on election day.
“This refutes the notion that only Western countries have higher voter turnouts,” the study notes. “However, in 36 so-called ‘established democracies – Denmark, Italy, Spain and Sweden among them – there’s been a slow but steady decline in voter turn outs.”
In countries like Sweden, Iceland, Malta and Germany, the number of women voters has risen to parity. This is the Philippine pattern too.
“One classical and fairly-well documented conclusion is: turn out rates tend to be the lowest among the youngest voters ( age 18 to 29 )”, the study adds. It reaches 93 percent for those between 60 to 69, Limited education, lack of jobs and electoral systems damp down votes of the young.
In the 1980s, 81 countries shucked off dictators and embraced free elections. “People Power in the Philippines removed Ferdinand Marcos in 1986,” noted the UN report: “Deepening Democracy In a Fragmented World.” Tossed out with Marcos were soulmates: Mobutu, Amin and Banda, in Africa, as well as Pinochet and Fujimori in Latin America and Suharto in Asia.
Failure of new democracies to deliver on promises led to backsliding. Some 34 countries are in transition to nowhere. “Obstacles to democracy have little to do culture or religion,” then UN Secretary General Kofi Anan wrote. “(They’ve ) much more to do with the desire of those in power to maintain their position at any cost.”
Will the May 14 voter turn out exceed 80 percent again? Your guess is as good as mine. Will the frustration index, in the middle class, spiral higher, dynasties dig in? Above all, will citizens settle for the role of passive evaluators “rendering a verdict on the conduct, and thus the legitimacy of the ( May 14 ) elections?”
“Democracy must be something more than two wolves and a sheep voting on what to have for dinner,” civil libertarian James Bovard once said Or will voters say, as they did in 1986 and 2004 : Basta. “Enough is enough”.
”Vision is not enough”, statesman Vaclav Havel wrote. “It must be combined with venture. It is not enough to stare at the steps. We must step up the stairs.”
(juan_mercado@pacific.net.ph)
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Control over government has splintered
|
|
|
|
SEVERAL weeks ago, we took the position that no one seems to be in complete control of the Manila government. Because of the manner by which the presidency landed into the laps of Gloria Macapagal Arroyo through manipulations arranged by a group of military and police generals as evidenced by the Garci tapes, we held that control has passed on to this uniformed group.
This GMA-military-police alliance has been further strengthened by the militarization of the civilian government. A reward system has emerged where retiring generals are assured of top civilian posts with lucrative compensations after being granted military pensions. On the other hand, non-cooperative military officers are separated from the service with their retirement benefits even forfeited.
The quid pro quo for GMA is her political survival. The generals guarantee her protection against loss of power through extra constitutional means (coups). Further, as events have shown, the generals are more than willing to violate the constitution as they did in the presidential elections of 2004. Their recent actuations and pronouncements of late indicate that they will exceed what they did in 2004 in the elections next week to prevent any further attempt to impeach GMA in the next congress by preventing them to achieve the necessary numbers.
Events unfolding recently have also shown that the growing arrogance of power by the generals have begun to trickle down to the civilian bureaucracy. GMA’s bureaucratic loyalists have grown bolder and bolder. It is becoming that impression that power has gone into their heads that they have probably exceeded their political mandates even from GMA herself in abusing their authorities for her.
GMA loyalists have become “garapal” (totally devoid of any semblance of ethics). Columnist Conrado de Quiroz of the Philippine Daily Inquirer exclaimed “Bastusan” (Shameless). The Inquirer in its editorial last week asked “Who’s in charge?”
After the 2004 elections, we opined that unless the Commission on Elections is overhauled, it would be impossible to hope for a clean elections ever. And there are grounds to file cases against Chairman Abalos for this purpose. Now, it’s too late. Everything points to an election that would dwarf the irregularities of 2004. And this time, the military and the police appears to be ready to violate every election law to make the administration candidates win.
This week, immediate past Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, Art Panganiban, could no longer keep quiet and delivered a resounding slap against the Commission on Elections.
Abalos had withheld announcing the names of the Party List candidates for congress. He cited imagined constitutional provision to support the prohibition.
Calling Abalos’ undisguised violation of the constitution, former Chief Justice Panganiban cited specific Supreme Court decisions, which were even subsequently cited in later cases to disprove the Comelec chief’s contentions. Then last May 3, the Supreme Court ordered the Comelec to publish the Party List’s names of candidates. There was no choice. Abalos had to comply. But it’s doubtful if the names could reach the voters on time.
Chief Justice Panganiban said there were six qualifications for Party List candidates.
The voters, had they known the names, could have questioned such qualification and moved to disqualify some of the candidates. Many were put up by the administration and amply funded by it no doubt. For example, the announced list includes Gen. Palparan, described as the butcher of victims of extra judicial killings. It also included a brother of Abalos.
The Comelec chairman is just one of the GMA loyalists who abused his powers. In the most recent case of Makati Mayor Jejomar Binay, there were DILG Secretary Puno and the BIR deputy commissioner. Both were disclaimed by Malacanang after the DILG suspended Binay and after the BIR attached the bank accounts of the Makati City and the personal accounts of the Mayor to answer for unpaid city obligations to the tax agency. Both actions were carried out after the close of office hours last Friday.
GMA realized it was a big mistake and attempted some damage control. But it was too late. The administration senatorial candidates would probably lose not only in Makati but in adjacent areas in Metro Manila. Some of GMA’s candidates voiced their fears. Such are the problems when control is lost.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
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
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
