Why many believe the Pacquiao-Bradley fight was fixed

June 14, 2012

AS I WRECK THIS CHAIR 
By William M. Esposo
The Philippine Star

Facebook, which my friend and New York Times columnist, W. Scott Thompson, says registers 60% of total social media traffic, went abuzz with suspicions of fight fixing immediately after Timothy Bradley was declared the winner by a split decision over Manny “Pacman” Pacquiao. To be brutally frank — which is the norm insofar as my writing style is concerned — your Chair Wrecker also suspects the same.

Boxing has always suffered from a reputation of being a dirty sport. The suspicion of rampant fight fixing contributed heavily to this bad reputation of boxing — more than the cuts, bruises and occasional ring deaths. Boxing is today’s toned down version of the gladiatorial games of Ancient Rome and with such a genealogy, we must always be very wary of all the bad elements that can invade this sport.

There is only one logical explanation for most boxing aficionados why those two “blind” ring judges voted in favor of Timothy Bradley — a lot of money was to be made with such a split decision. Timothy Bradley may have committed a slip of the tongue when he announced the day before the fight that he was looking forward to the rematch. He should. That would be the biggest payday of his life because he’s now the defending champion and is entitled to a share of the purse not very far from Pacquiao’s take home pay.

Why was it easy to suspect that the Pacquiao-Bradley fight was fixed? Consider these.

There are very few fighters in the horizon that can justify the big revenues of the previous Pacquiao fights. A Manny Pacquiao-Floyd Mayweather bout would have broken all previous revenue records but that never took off. Mayweather seems to fear getting beaten and humbled by Pacquiao. A Bradley trilogy is the best option for ensuring that there will be three big-revenue fights for Pacquiao, now obviously in his sunset years as a fighter.

Bradley is the man Pacquiao would want to beat him. He can easily knock out Bradley in their projected November rematch, setting the stage for a third mega revenue bout. The superiority of Pacquiao was evident from the 12 rounds they fought last June 10 (Manila Time).

The initial emotional reaction of many who watched the fight was that the bad decision marked the death of boxing. That’s only an initial emotional reaction. The truth is boxing is now a dying sport and if not for Manny Pacquiao, it could have been dead and buried a long time ago. Nowadays, many don’t even know and care to know who’s the reigning heavyweight champion of the world.

If indeed, the Pacquiao-Bradley fight was fixed, the next question that needs to be answered is this: Who were in on the big fix? Was this just the work of a crime syndicate who found a way to bribe two judges and rake it in from the 5 to 1 odds against Bradley? Or was Bob Arum part of the deal and the planning? And if Bob Arum was in on it, are Pacquiao and Bradley in on it too?

Another factor that feeds the suspicion that our Pacman could have been in on the big fix is the many talks and media reports that Pacquiao has been living off future fight revenues. He recently underwent negative publicity for failing to respond to queries of the Bureau of Internal Revenue (BIR) on his alleged unpaid taxes. A cash-strapped Pacquiao, seeing that he has few fights left in his boxing career, is easily perceived as vulnerable to a big fix. News stories from the US purporting a sudden last minute placing of bets on Bradley reinforced this suspicion.

Bob Arum’s rant and call for an investigation didn’t convince some of those who suspected that he was in on the alleged big fix. On Facebook, several commented that Arum did that to cover his tracks. Others also pointed out that it seemed odd that Pacquiao easily accepted the judges’ decision. He had all the right to protest the decision but accepted it like a meek lamb.

The Pacquiao-Bradley fight was nowhere near the Ali-Frazier March 8, 1971 first fight. Ali may have been leading up to that point when Frazier scored a 15th round knockdown and subsequently won by a unanimous decision. Only the most biased and defective eyes would have considered Bradley’s performance to be like Joe Frazier’s in 1971. And yet, Pacquiao hardly protested the decision. Even Bradley was reported to have known and was ready to accept that he lost to Pacquiao. And yet, Pacquiao hardly pleaded his case.

Could it be the New Christian that Pacquiao has been trying to project lately that allowed him to accept being cheated so gallantly? You can believe that if you want to, but not me.

My friend Ronnie Nathanielz was right to call the decision a high crime in Las Vegas, although he would only press the issue with the two judges. Indeed, there was a high crime that was committed in Las Vegas last June 10 and we should all demand for an investigation that will bring out the whole truth.

Shakespeare: “Madness in great ones must not unwatched go.”

* * *

Chair Wrecker e-mail and website: macesposo@yahoo.com. and www.chairwrecker.com

A forgotten moment in history

June 14, 2012

By Emil Jurado  
Manila Standard Today

The Cabinet revamp is not a media hype anymore. It is for real. First, Energy Secretary Jose Rene Almendras will take on another function, that of being chief of the Presidential Management Staff. He will replace Julia Abad, daughter of Budget Secretary Butch Abad, who is relocating to Washington DC to join her husband who works for the World Bank.

Almendras will fit in well. He is well-like and respected by his peers. He is close to the President and his sisters and he is not identified with the warring Samar and Balay groups.

Almendras has done much as energy secretary. He has promoted renewable sources of energy. He will be a big loss to the department, but my inside information is that he will continue to be the chairman of the Philippine National Oil Co.

Retiring Senator Panfilo Lacson will take over the Department of the Interior and Local Government, and Senator Francis Pangilinan will do the same at the Department of Environment and Natural Resources, replacing Secretaries Jesse Robredo and Ramon Paje, respectively. Just when is a matter of speculation.

***

On June 14, 1945, Bessang Pass, the last stronghold of the retreating Japanese Occupation forces when the Americans landed in Lingayen Gulf, fell. It led to the surrender of Toshio Yamashita, known as the “Tiger of Malaya.”

Bessang Pass was the gateway to the stronghold of Yamashita’s forces, which had the advantage of terrain because it was an uphill battle for the Filipino soldiers belonging to the United States Forces in the Philippines Northern Luzon, the guerrilla force that kept alive the dream of Filipinos of liberating the country from the Japanese forces in Luzon.

In the battle for Bessang Pass, no less than 1,405 Ilocano and Igorot soldiers died. But it was one glorious moment in the annals of history when the Filipinos sacrificed their lives for love of country to liberate it from foreign domination. The Battle of Bessang Pass was won 67 years ago and is remembered in the Armed Forces of the Philippine as a momentous event. It was also described as the Battle among the Clouds.

The campaign for the capture of Bessang Pass was for the 121 Infantry 3rd Battalion under then Major Conrado Rigor with the overall command of Col. Russel Volckman, who headed the USAFIP NL.

I consider it a tragedy that no president since Marcos considered the important of the Battle of Bessang Pass, except former President Fidel V. Ramos, himself a veteran of the Korean and Vietnam wars (Ramos even had a shrine in Cervantes, Ilocos Sur, to commemorate the event.)

I write about this now as I do on June 14 each year. This is because my late brothers, former Court of Appeals Justice Desiderio P. Jurado and former Manila International Airport manager Guillermo “Willie” Jurado were at Bessang Pass.

In fact, it was my eldest brother Desi, then second lieutenant and company commander of the 3rd Battalion under Major Rigor, led the assault at Bessang Pass and made it to the top against heavy odds and firepower.

Desi was awarded a Silver Star for bravery beyond the call of duty. Willie also had a purple heart award when he was wounded in battle.

Santa Banana, it is a tragedy that while we mark the Fall of Bataan and Corregidor, Philippine presidents now cannot relate to, much less mark the Battle of Bessang Pass, as a glorious moment in history that ended the occupation of the country by the Japanese forces.

The Philippine is truly a damaged nation which doesn’t remember its glorious past and fallen heroes.

***

Two members of the Aquino administration, Secretary of Justice Leila de Lima and Bureau of Internal Revenue Commissioner Kim Jacinto Henares, labeled the “most feared women of the administration,” have been nominated to replace ousted Chief Justice Renato Corona.

I have nothing but admiration and respect for Henares as BIR commissioner for going against the high and mighty for tax evasion. For this, I believe President Aquino needs her more at the BIR to continue her work.

I cannot say the same thing about De Lima, who has not lived up to expectations of giving every person his due. She just does what the President tells her to do – a real lapdog of Malacañang.

De Lima was rebuffed by the President when the latter overturned her recommendation that those at fault during that infamous 2010 hostage crisis should be criminally and administratively charged. She stayed on when others would have resigned out of delicadeza and self-respect.

A Supreme Court justice needs to be independent. This is absent in the case of De Lima and Henares, who even testified against Corona during the impeachment trial on behalf of the prosecution, under the baton of the President. As such, De Lima and Henares have disqualified themselves.

De Lima is also facing three counts of disbarment and a pending case of contempt of the Supreme Court itself. To have a candidate for chief justice defying a temporary restraining order issued by the high court is a supreme insult.

(Published in the Manila Standard Today newspaper on /2012/June/14)

http://opinion.manilastandardtoday.com/2012/06/14/a-forgotten-moment-in-history/

Pacquiao wasn’t robbed; he was ‘punished’ under law of supply and demand

June 14, 2012

By Alex P. Vidal

LOS ANGELES, California – When Manny Pacquiao was “about to fail” to produce a knockout victory after five straight fights on the night of June 9 at the MGM Grand in Las Vegas, Nevada, his goose was cooked.

After his failure to deck Joshua Clottey, Antonio Margarito, Shane Mosley, and Juan Manuel Marquez, boxing – Las Vegas boxing to be precise – was on death throes. (He fought both Clottey and Margarito in Arlington, Texas).

Four straight boring decision wins for the man who rescued professional boxing from the doldrums in the absence of exciting heavyweight bouts that used to dominate prizefighting in the 60s, 70’s, 80’s, and early 90’s was not good for business.

A fifth straight decision win for the most celebrated boxer in the planet today would be fatal for the sport that has amassed billions of revenues since Las Vegas captured worldwide audience in sports and entertainment on October 2, 1980 when Larry Holmes blasted to smithereens Muhammad Ali via 10th round TKO to annex the WBC heavyweight title.

For financiers to continue hitting pay dirt and luring rich sponsors, boxing needed a spectacular knockout show from the best boxer pound-for-pound to satisfy paying bloodthirsty fans and to keep boxing’s cash registry machine ringing.

In Las Vegas – or in any part of the United States in as far as boxing is concerned – Manny Pacquiao is business; business is Manny Pacquiao. The congressman from Mindanao is boxing’s multi-billion guy and number one endorser. He is boxing’s life-support system. Each lackluster performance means a decline in pay-per-view and gate receipts in the next promotion.

RESPONSIBILITY

On Pacquiao’s shoulders rest the titanic responsibility to fill the vacuum left behind by Holmes, Ali, George Foreman, Riddick Bowe, Andrew Golota, Evander Holyfield, Ray Mercer, Vitaly Klitschko, and Mike Tyson. Boxing skidded into all-time low when explosive heavyweight duels virtually closed shop in the later part of 1990’s. Enter Pacquiao, a mighty atom who packs wallop in both fists.

Although his baptism of fire in Las Vegas occurred on June 23, 2001 when he poleaxed Lehlono Ledwaba of South Africa in the sixth round to clinch the IBF super-bantamweight crown as a relative unknown in the US market, empty seats in major venues such as Thomas & Mack Center, Mandalay Bay Resort and Casino, began to disappear when Pacquiao humiliated Erik “El Terible” Morales via 10th round TKO on January 21, 2006 at the Thomas & Mack Center to avenge a 12-round unanimous decision loss to the Mexican on March 19, 2005 at the MGM Grand.

The revenge to Morales romped off Pacquiao’s love affair with Las Vegas where he obtained a perfect 10-0 win-loss (6 KO’s) juggernaut in world title showdowns. In those victories, he became one of the riches paid athletes in the world amassing nearly a whopping $60 million in purses and shares in pay-per-view, according to Forbes Magazine

VICTORY

Pacquiao’s last stoppage victory came on November 14, 2009 when he grabbed Miguel Angel Cotto’s WBO welterweight title on a brutal 11th round TKO at the MGM Grand.

Since then, he logged decision victories against Clottey (12-round WBO welterweight title), Margarito (12-round WBC light-middleweight title), Mosley (WBO welterweight title), and Marquez (WBO welterweight title).

Hounded by calls for his retirement owing to a mothballed fight against Floyd Mayweather Jr. and alarming decline of his knockout percentage, Pacquiao was obliged to put to sleep Timothy Ray Bradley Jr. in their 12-round battle for the WBO 174-lb jewels to preserve the chain of command prior to a possible fisticuff against Mayweather Jr. and to protect his market value as boxing’s only 8-division champion in history. Most of all, to ignite sparks in fight business in danger of being walloped by recession.

If he couldn’t put up a spectacular performance against Bradley – a knockout in his 60th professional fight – a changing of the guard was imminent. No one has the monopoly to bankroll millions of dollars without putting up a hair-splitting show.

‘GOOD GUY’

Since Bradley’s “a good guy,” according to Top Rank boss Bob Arum during the post-fight press conference, “it’s okay” (if Pacquiao’s WBO welterweight belt changed waist).

Young and eager to prove his win against Pacquiao wasn’t a fluke, Bradley will now aim to give the sport a new lease in life by knocking all his next challengers if he hurdles Pacquiao in their November 2 rematch.

For Arum, et al, when one door closes, another door will open. Arum’s love for Bradley is not a secret. Immediately after Michael Buffer announced the split decision verdict, Arum didn’t hide his excitement as he congratulated the newly crowned champion like a father shaking the hand of a graduating son accepting awards on stage.

Pacquiao, who vowed to deny the judges the chance to decide the outcome of his rematch with Bradley, may not have realized that the judges who scored a split decision for Bradley after he failed to send the unbeaten American to dreamland, did not rob him of his WBO title. The “punishment” was necessary under law of supply and demand.

Historical Irony of Independence Day

June 14, 2012

Telltale Signs
By Rodel Rodis

Apolinario Mabini, the author of the constitution of the First Philippine Republic in Malolos in 1898, was not pleased with a phrase in the Declaration of Philippine Independence that Ambrosio Rianzares Bautista drafted at the direction of the Republic’s first president, Gen. Emilio Aguinaldo. When he first heard it on June 12, 1898, Mabini asked that the phrase be excised. At Aguinaldo’s insistence, however, the phrase was retained.

The controversial phrase was the new republic’s proclamation of its independence from Spain “under the protection of our Powerful and Humanitarian Nation, The United States of America”.

Aguinaldo had invited then Commodore George Dewey – who vanquished the Spanish fleet in Manila Bay on May 1, 1898 – to attend the Declaration of Independence festivities at Kawit, Cavite on June 12 so that Dewey could report to his superiors in the United States that Filipinos were fully capable, intellectually and organizationally, of governing themselves. But Dewey, under directions from Navy Undersecretary Theodore Roosevelt to not make any commitments to Philippine independence, dispatched an artillery colonel, L.M. Johnson, to represent him instead.

Col. Johnson signed the Philippine Declaration of Independence as a witness but he signed it simply as a tourist attending a local event. The United States was not interested in helping the new republic ward off foreign invaders when it had an intention – a “manifest destiny” – to colonize the Philippines for itself.

The historical irony is that almost 114 years later, on June 8, 2012, Aguinaldo’s current successor, Pres. Benigno S. Aquino III, would meet U.S. Pres. Barack Obama to seek what Aguinaldo had sought – “the protection of our Powerful and Humanitarian Nation”.

As the Washington Post reported (“Philippine President Aquino seeks U.S. military aid”, June 9, 2012), “the president of the Philippines made a direct pitch to the White House Friday to help bolster his country’s relatively weak defenses as the island nation increasingly finds itself tangled in territorial conflicts with China.”

At a press conference held after the White House meeting, Obama pledged US support for “Aquino’s efforts to upgrade the notoriously antiquated Philippine military and build a “minimum credible defense posture.”

The United States has stepped up its military aid to the Philippines, including last year’s delivery of a decommissioned coast guard cutter, the BRP Gregorio del Pilar, to replace the Rajah Humabon, a World War II-era vessel, as the Philippine Navy’s biggest ship. Another cutter, the Dallas, is due to be delivered later this year. About 8 more coast guard cutters are in the pipeline.

It will be recalled that in his first State of the Nation address delivered on July 26, 2010, Pres. Aquino pledged to upgrade the Philippine Navy which had only 32 old naval vessels (“panahon pa ni Gen. MacArthur”) to patrol 32,000 nautical miles of territorial waters.

Filipinos complain that Aquino’s predecessor, Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, spent more money purchasing SUVs for compliant bishops than on securing new ships for maritime security.

Aquino’s state visit to the U.S. has focused American media attention to the Scarborough Shoal conflict which had been largely ignored until US Filipinos organized protest rallies in front of all the Chinese consular offices in the US on May 11.

As the New York Times reported on June 9 (“Obama Expresses Support for Philippines in China Rift”), “a festering quarrel that began over rare coral, giant clams and sharks in a distant sea made its way to the Oval Office on Friday, as President Benigno S. Aquino III of the Philippines sought the backing of President Obama in a maritime dispute with China.”

Two months after it began, the New York Times reported on the “tense standoff” between the Philippines and China “over rights to a triangular cluster of reefs and rocks in the South China Sea known as Scarborough Shoal.”

Pres. Aquino received an expression of support from Secretary of State Hillary Rodham Clinton at a State Department luncheon in his honor held before the White House visit. As the Times reported, “Clinton reiterated that the United States had an interest in the “maintenance of peace and stability” and “freedom of navigation” in the South China Sea. She encouraged Mr. Aquino to resolve the dispute with Beijing peacefully, and she warned that the United States would oppose “the use of force or coercion.”

In its Independence Day editorial, the Philippine Daily Inquirer lamented the fact that “more than a century after Spain ceded the Philippines to the United States, the territory has become more and more porous because of the inability of the nation-state to secure its borders. Bajo de Masinloc, the shoal off Zambales as named by the Spaniards, has become the poaching ground of Chinese fishers and has been arrogantly claimed by China by historic right, even if it is Philippine territory by virtue of the Treaty of Paris and of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea. The same sad situation is happening in the Spratlys and elsewhere. All over the archipelago, smuggling, illegal trade in arms and drugs, human trafficking, fundamentalist kidnapping, and even terrorism thrive because of the failure of the nation-state to police its borders.”

Ironically, under the “protection” of, and renewed commitment of military assistance from, the United States, the Philippines may yet succeed in policing its borders. Perhaps China did the Philippines a huge unintended favor by menacing its waters off Masinloc two months ago.

(Rodel50@gmail.com)

Fight Over 16 Cities Revived

June 9, 2012

By MARK ANTHONY N. MANUEL
Manila Bulletin

CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, Pampanga — Now that the Supreme Court (SC) is without former Chief Justice Renato C. Corona, the League of Cities in the Philippines (LCP) will again try to reverse the conversion of 16 municipalities into cities through a motion for reconsideration of the High Court’s ruling last year.

It will be recalled that the SC ruled on Feb. 15, 2011, to allow the conversion of 16 municipalities – which the LCP contended were unqualified for cityhood – into new cities.

Then Chief Justice Corona was one of the seven justices who voted for the constitutionality of the conversion laws that paved the way for the cityhood of the 16 local government units (LGUs).

These cities in question are Mati (Davao Oriental); Naga, Bogo, and Carcar (Cebu); Baybay, (Leyte); Catbalogan and Borongan (Samar); Tandag (Surigao del Sur); Lamitan (Basilan); Tayabas (Quezon); Tabuk (Kalinga); Bayugan (Agusan del Sur); Batac (Ilocos Norte); Guihulngan (Negros Oriental); Cabadbaran (Agusan del Norte); and El Salvador (Misamis Oriental).

“Our group is considering an appeal before the Supreme Court and open the case… our opposition to the 16 ‘unqualified’ new cities,” said LCP president and mayor of this city, Oscar Rodriguez.

He said member-cities of the LCP still believe that the decision of the SC should be overturned as the new cities did not pass primary requirements like income, land area, and population, as provided for by the Local Government Code to qualify them for cityhood.

The 112 member-cities of the LCP are expected to lose at least P3.7-billion of funds from internal revenue allotment (IRA) because of the decision of the High Court.

Rodriguez said that the nationwide annual losses of its existing members because of the SC decision include the reduction of P758 million in housing funds; reduction of at least P980 million in basic services that include education, health, and social welfare; cut of some P189 million in calamity funds; and cut in their human resources budget that will translate to the possible loss of 11,855 government employees in the said 112 cities.

The mayor also warned that the alleged “flip-flopping” decision of the High Court will open the gates to indiscriminate conversion of unqualified local government units into cities.

“This will actually hurt qualified cities which are the engine of countrywide progress,” the LCP president said.

The mayor insisted that the conversion is unconstitutional and that not all municipalities that have been converted to cities are qualified.

Citing the Local Government Code, Rodriguez explained that a town should have at least have P100-million income per year and about 150,000 residents to qualify to cityhood. He explained that not all the 16 towns have that requirement.

It will be recalled that LCP members said last year that they may file impeachment complaints against seven justices of the High Court for “betrayal of public trust and violation of the constitution” because of upholding the constitutionality of the laws transforming the 16 towns into cities.

LCP was referring to now ousted Chief Justice Renato Corona and Associate Justices Presbitero Velasco Jr., Teresita Leonardo-De Castro, Roberto Abad, Jose Perez, Jose Mendoza, and Lucas Bersamin.

In 2007, the High Court upheld the constitutionality of the 16 cities. However, upon the petition of LCP, the SC declared the cityhood of these cities as unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, on Dec. 22, 2009 the High Court reversed its 2007 decision, and upheld the constitutionality of the laws that converted the said towns into cities.

http://www.mb.com.ph/articles/361492/fight-over-16-cities-revived

Wrong solution to wrong problem?

June 7, 2012 

ON DISTANT SHORE

By Val G. Abelgas

In 2004, the Department of Education tried to add one year to the Philippines’ basic education curriculum, but was stopped by massive protests from teachers, students and parents. Last Monday, despite more protests against the K-12 plan, which adds two years to basic education in the country, it went on with the implementation of the controversial program anyway.

The K to 12 program follows the K-6-4-2 Model where basic education equates to Kindergarten plus six years in elementary (Grades 1 to 6), four years in junior high school (Grades 7 to 10) and introduction of two years in senior high school (Grades 11 and 12).

The government said the “K to 12 will facilitate an accelerated economic growth” and “will facilitate mutual recognition of Filipino graduates and professionals in other countries.”

If adding two more years to the curriculum were that important to the country’s economic growth, why has the government not done anything in the last eight years to respond to the parents and teachers’ concerns that there are not enough classrooms and teachers to implement the program?

And now after doing nothing about the problem, why the haste in implementing the K-12 program?

“We are not yet ready,” said a Grade 1 teacher in Quezon City, adding that she was still confused on how to teach her subjects. She described a training program she attended from May 28 to June 1 as “hastily done.”

Another teacher said they were never given textbooks or handouts for the new curriculum. “So my problem now is to photocopy the instructional materials for the 200 students. It might cost a lot,” she said.

Members of the Manila Public School Teachers Association (MPSTA) said the K-12 was “a wrong solution to a wrong problem.”

“We are calling on DepEd and PNoy to stop the K to 12 program because it is not a solution but an additional burden. The program has no legislation and has no fund appropriated for it. We lack preparation in retooling and training for teachers, and we don’t have textbooks and teaching modules,” MPSA President Benjie Valbuena said.

The MPSTA said that the department lacks 101,612 teachers, 68,000 classrooms, and 135,847 sanitation facilities and the “haphazard” implementation of K to 12 “will just worsen the situation.”

Alliance of Concerned Teachers (ACT) party-list Rep. Antonio Tinio warned that this school year will be “more chaotic and disastrous” because the government is not yet ready to go full-blast with the program.

Tinio gave an even worse number in shortages for the whole public school system that he said stands at 132,483 teachers; 97,685 classrooms; and 153,709 water and sanitation facilities.

He warned that the influx of around 1.6 million five-year-old enrollees in Kindergarten this school year would result in a shortage of around 20,000 teachers and 25,000 classrooms solely for the Kindergarten component of K-to-12.

To solve the teacher problem, the education department hired 16,000 teachers and volunteers on a one-year contract for the measly wage of P3,000 a month, which is lower than a janitor’s salary, to teach kids in their most vulnerable stage in life. Many of these new hires, according to the MPSTA, are not even licensed teachers and may not be properly equipped to teach 5-year-old kids.

“There is no law yet authorizing the implementation of the full “K to 12” education program. The curriculum is not yet ready; funds are insufficient to cover the basic inputs such as shortages on teachers, classrooms, textbooks, chairs and sanitation facilities. But our calls and demands continue to fall on deaf ears,” Tinio said.

Why do Philippine education officials insist that the solution to the country’s fast-sliding standard of education is to add two more years of schooling?

Of course, we acknowledge that the country’s educational standard has fallen abruptly. Although the Philippines churns out the highest percentage of college graduates every year, many of these graduates sometimes cannot even make simple arithmetic calculations nor understand basic science principles.

But will two extra years for Filipino students solve the problem? I don’t think so.

The two extra years will only discourage thousands of parents, who are already saddled by the high cost of sending their children to school. This would be even more disastrous because it is not just the proficiency rating in math, science and reading that would suffer, but the very future of millions of students.

The two extra years will further aggravate the dismal classroom situation, and there will be more students cramped in the already overcrowded classrooms, making it even more difficult for both teachers and students to focus on teaching and studying. If they are serious in implementing the two extra years, they better build more classrooms first.

The DOE has to look at the deteriorating standard of education in the Philippines on a wider perspective. There could be a hundred reasons why students are not as good as they were, say 20 or 30 years ago.

For one, good teachers are lured into going abroad, to work as maids or chambermaids in Hongkong, Singapore, the Middle East or in Europe. Secondly, fewer people are enrolling in education courses and thus, schools don’t have much choice in selecting teachers.

Inversely, the number of students in public schools has increased many folds. Teachers have to teach to a class that sometimes number more than 50 students, certainly not an ideal environment to make students learn. School facilities are old and wanting, and many public schools are in rundown condition. The increasing number of students has also resulted in some public schools forced to having two to three shifts of classes, thus cramping so many subjects in so few hours.

Both the teachers and the students are often not in the right frame of mind while in school. Many teachers worry about financial problems at home, and many students are also distracted by family and financial problems.

The government needs to increase the budget for education. While a big chunk of the budget goes to the military, education, which ultimately affects a nation’s future, gets a measly share. The UNESCO advises that at least 6 percent of a country’s gross domestic product (GDP) should be allocated to education, but the Philippines’ current budget only allots 2.5 percent of the GDP to education. A law should also be passed allocating a big portion of the lawmakers’ pork barrel funds to build more classrooms and repair existing ones in their respective districts.

What the country’s education system needs at the moment are more and better teachers, more classrooms, more textbooks and better learning environment, not two extra years. When these needs have been met, the students probably wouldn’t even need those extra years to have a better education that is at par with the rest of the world.

(valabelgas@aol.com)

The SALN Revolution

June 6, 2012

PerryScope
by Perry Diaz

The recent impeachment and removal of Renato Corona as the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court of the Philippines was without precedence in the annals of Philippine jurisprudence.  However, the impeachment trial was fraught with uncertainty and high drama, which up to the very end could have gone for conviction or acquittal.  But the final verdict of 20-3 for conviction was meted out based on Corona’s own admission or “confession” — on the last hour of the last day of his testimony — that he owns dollar and peso deposits amounting to $2.4 million and P80.7 million, respectively, which he did not report in his Statement of Assets, Liabilities, and Net Worth (SALN).  It was an act of “hara-kiri” knowing full well that by his admission his fate was sealed.  But did he have a choice? 

But the sad denouement was not scripted nor predicted.   Up to that last act, a conviction was doomed from the start of the impeachment trial, which lasted 44 days.  On the one hand, the House prosecution team was unable to present clear and convincing evidence.  They simply didn’t have the prosecutorial aptitude to make their case.  On the other hand, the defense team – consisting of top defense lawyers led no less by the seasoned retired Supreme Court Justice Serafin Cuevas – managed to dispute the credibility and veracity of the evidence.

But it was the defense team’s own undoing that shattered Corona’s defense.  When the members of the defense team demanded that Ombudsman Conchita Carpio-Morales testify as a condition for Corona to take the witness stand in his own defense, they didn’t realize that what they did was akin to opening the gates of Troy to accept a gift – a wooden horse – from the Greeks that would destroy the fortress-city from within.  And when Carpio-Morales presented the damning 17-page report from the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) that detailed 705 transactions – movement of money – involving 82 bank deposit accounts in Corona’s name, Corona’s once formidable defense collapsed just like what happened to ancient Troy.

Conviction

On May 29, 2012, the senator-judges voted to convict Corona.  How did that happen?  A few days after Corona was dealt the “guilty” verdict, Sen. Loren Legarda revealed that two days before that fateful day, seven senator-judges – the “Magnificent Seven” — met at her home to ponder Corona’s guilt or innocence.  Led by Senate President and Presiding Officer Juan Ponce Enrile, the powerful bloc of senators consisted of Pro Tempore Jinggoy Estrada, Majority Leader Tito Sotto, Gregorio Honasan, Loren Legarda, Manny Villar, and Ramon Revilla Jr.   

Ultimately, it was Corona’s admission of not reporting his dollar and peso deposits in his SALN that sealed his fate, and as a consequence, the members of the Enrile bloc decided that Corona was guilty of not reporting the true value of his assets in his SALN, which was the essence of Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.  

Sovereign command

With emphasis on truthful SALN disclosure as a key factor, the 20 senator-judges who voted for conviction hinged their judgment solely on Corona’s failure to report his dollar and peso deposits, which is a violation of Section 17 of Article 11, which mandates:  “A public officer or employee shall, upon assumption of office and as often thereafter as may be required by law, submit a declaration under oath of his assets, liabilities, and net worth. In the case of the President, the Vice-President, the Members of the Cabinet, the Congress, the Supreme Court, the Constitutional Commissions and other constitutional offices, and officers of the armed forces with general or flag rank, the declaration shall be disclosed to the public in the manner provided by law.”

For the first time since the 1986 EDSA “people power” revolution, this “sovereign command” of the 1987 Constitution was enforced upon the highest echelons in the government, no less than the Chief Justice himself.  And for the first time, a constitutional officer had been removed from office for culpable violation of the 1987 Constitution and betrayal of public trust.

People’s victory
This is a victory for the Filipino people who have seen how those in power trampled the 1987 Constitution for their own personal interests.  The people saw how former President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo manipulated them into staging a sham “people power” revolution in 2001 to unseat President Joseph “Erap” Estrada and take over the presidency herself. They saw how Gloria attempted to manipulate and amend the Constitution so she could remain in power indefinitely.  They saw how Gloria stacked the Supreme Court with justices loyal to her.  They saw how Gloria manipulated the appointment of Corona as Chief Justice during the period banning midnight appointments during elections.  And they saw how corruption in government made their lives miserable.  But the people persevered hoping that someday their aspirations would be heard by the powers-that-be.

So it did not then come as a surprise that during the impeachment trial, polls taken consistently showed that the people were convinced of Corona’s guilt.  The people wanted him removed from office.  Yet, the senator-judges were not influenced by public opinion against Corona saying that the evidence was not convincing enough.  As Sen. Alan Peter Cayetano told the media during an interview, “I don’t want to convict an innocent man but I don’t want to acquit a guilty man either.”  It’s an ambivalence that was leaning more towards an acquittal because, in the final analysis, who would convict an innocent man unless there is clear and convincing evidence of guilt?

But serendipity helped Cayetano out of his dilemma.  Right after Corona’s abbreviated testimony on his second and last day on the witness stand on May 25, Cayetano asked Corona: How much unreported dollar deposits did he own?  Corona answered, “$2.4 million.”  What more did Cayetano want to hear to make up his mind?  On May 29, he voted “guilty” as charged.

Redemption

The turn of events in the final days of the impeachment trial has brought to the forefront of public debate Enrile’s leadership during the trial.  He was credited with steering the trial on an even keel avoiding controversial situations that could have rocked the boat.

His sterling leadership had a redeeming effect on his past political life.  Having been on the wrong side of history as the Defense Minister during the dark years of the martial law regime of the late dictator Ferdinand E. Marcos, he – together with then Gen. Fidel V. Ramos – led the 1986 EDSA “people power” revolution.  For once, Enrile was on the right side of history but not for long.  After Cory Aquino was installed as President, Enrile stayed out of Cory’s circle and was often alleged to have figured in several attempts to remove her from office through a series of coup d’états.

As a senator-judge during the impeachment trial of Erap Estrada in 2001, Enrile together with 10 others became known as the “Craven Eleven” who voted not to open the “second envelope,” which was supposed to contain Erap’s bank accounts.  As a result, the prosecution team led by then Rep. Joker Arroyo walked out; thus, throwing the trial in turmoil.  A few days later the sham people power revolution – or “EDSA 2” – erupted and Gloria took over the presidency from Erap.

At age 88, Enrile is back on the right side of history just like where he was during the EDSA revolution.  But this time around, the revolution he’s fighting for is to make public officials accountable and transparent to the people.

At the end of the day, his role in the conviction of Corona has been the redeeming moment of his life and deserving of a special place in our history.  Indeed, his long and colorful political life can be defined in one short statement:“From EDSA revolution to SALN revolution.”  Nothing is loftier or nobler than that.

(PerryDiaz@gmail.com)

# # #

“The world suffers a lot. Not because of the violence of bad people, but because of the silence of good people!” – Napoleon