At last, the court has realized that the case for electoral sabotage against Gloria Macapagal Arroyo is weak, and so the former president will now be released from prison on bail..
One recalls that there were two electoral charges that the government choose from when it filed the case against Arroyo: Electoral fraud with respect to the 2004 elections, where she won against Fernando Poe Jr, and electoral sabotage, with respect to the senatorial elections in 2007.
Plain common sense will readily tell anyone that between the two, the probability of GMA using the resources under her command was greater on the former than on the latter. Why? For the simple reason that she was a candidate in the former, not in the latter. The apparent evidence at hand was also relatively stronger in the first, at least iven the Garci Tape scandal, than on the former where the government's essential witness was one of the Ampatuans who, there is cogent reason to believe, must have been persuaded to stand as witness against her solely because he was taken out from the list of plaintiffs in the Maguindanao massacre. Given this, it therefore appears that comparatively the case against GMA was stronger for the 2004 electoral fraud than for the 2007 electoral sabotage. But why did the government still choose to file a case against GMA on the latter, not on the former? Again, the answer was quite commonsensical: - that is, under existing laws, electoral fraud is bailable, electoral sabotage is not. And so, it is crystal clear that the administration's primary concern was to put GMA in jail, like Erap before: in an unbailable status. And because of that, the government lawyers allowed themselves to appear stupid by filing a case against GMA on electoral sabotage, not bailable, than on electoral fraud, which is bailable. Now, the government is reaping the bitter fruits of its stupidity: GMA will be out on bail, and more importantly, for a relatively weaker case.
Of course, the government lawyers are now surely poised to file a plunder case against GMA et al, which again is another non-bailable crime. But n their one-consuming obsession to put GMA behind bars, certainly under PNoy's behest, they seem to forget that even non-bailable crimes may still be bailable whenever the evidence against the accused is WEAK.
At any rate, let's wait for newer related developments. As they say in comics, ABANGAN!
Martes, Hulyo 24, 2012
Biyernes, Hulyo 20, 2012
ISN'T PNOY ABUSING HIS POWER TO APPOINT?
"Aquino names Palace official to replace De Lima in JBC" -- news! Teka, is that allowable under the Constitution.
I am not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional expert. But one need not be such, he only needs to read the Constitution, to understand that the Constitution itself that created the Judicial and Bar Council (Section 8, Article VIII), providing at the same time its composition, appointment of their members, its functions, with the primary objective of making the appointment of members of the Supreme Court less political than what it was perceived to be under the 1973 Constitution.
It will be recalled that under the previous charter, only the President was involved in the appointment of high officials of the government, including members of the judiciary. There was then no effective remedy in case of abuse by the President of his appointing power. In fact, the situation as a deemed better under the 1935 Constitution.
The members of the Supreme Court used to be appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments in Congress. However, this power of Congress to confirm all appointments to the judiciary was deemed to be a source of political haggling and horse trading, in turn affecting the judicial independence of the appointees. Hence the creation, under the present charter, of the Judicial and Bar Council.
Under the auspices of the JBC, the selection of Supreme Court Justices requires the participation of the three equal branches of the government, because it is composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.
As things are, since each one of the above seven members of the JBC is entitled to one vote each, the Executive Branch may be said as having a distinct advantage over the Legislative and Judicial branches in the selection of the Justices. That is, each one of the the Judiciary and the Legislature has only one vote each: the Chief Justice and the representative of Congress, whereas the Executive Branch has very clearly five votes, i.e. those of the Secretary of Justice and the four regular members from civil or private sector, each one of whom are presidential appointees and must therefore be only expected to be beholden to the President.
Be that as it may, given the inclusion of Acting CJ Antonio Carpio and DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima in the list of nominees for the next CJ and, hence, their inhibition from the JBC, the new complexion of the votes has become zero for the Judiciary, one for the Legislative and four for the Judiciary. The thing is, the President still appears to want to preserve the Executive's five votes by appointing De Lima's temporary replacement in the JBC. If this is not an abuse of the presidential power to appoint, I do not know what else is.
I am not a lawyer, much less a Constitutional expert. But one need not be such, he only needs to read the Constitution, to understand that the Constitution itself that created the Judicial and Bar Council (Section 8, Article VIII), providing at the same time its composition, appointment of their members, its functions, with the primary objective of making the appointment of members of the Supreme Court less political than what it was perceived to be under the 1973 Constitution.
It will be recalled that under the previous charter, only the President was involved in the appointment of high officials of the government, including members of the judiciary. There was then no effective remedy in case of abuse by the President of his appointing power. In fact, the situation as a deemed better under the 1935 Constitution.
The members of the Supreme Court used to be appointed by the President subject to confirmation by the Commission on Appointments in Congress. However, this power of Congress to confirm all appointments to the judiciary was deemed to be a source of political haggling and horse trading, in turn affecting the judicial independence of the appointees. Hence the creation, under the present charter, of the Judicial and Bar Council.
Under the auspices of the JBC, the selection of Supreme Court Justices requires the participation of the three equal branches of the government, because it is composed of the Chief Justice as ex officio Chairman, the Secretary of Justice and a representative of the Congress as ex officio Members, a representative of the Integrated Bar, a professor of law, a retired Member of the Supreme Court, and a representative of the private sector.
As things are, since each one of the above seven members of the JBC is entitled to one vote each, the Executive Branch may be said as having a distinct advantage over the Legislative and Judicial branches in the selection of the Justices. That is, each one of the the Judiciary and the Legislature has only one vote each: the Chief Justice and the representative of Congress, whereas the Executive Branch has very clearly five votes, i.e. those of the Secretary of Justice and the four regular members from civil or private sector, each one of whom are presidential appointees and must therefore be only expected to be beholden to the President.
Be that as it may, given the inclusion of Acting CJ Antonio Carpio and DOJ Secretary Leila De Lima in the list of nominees for the next CJ and, hence, their inhibition from the JBC, the new complexion of the votes has become zero for the Judiciary, one for the Legislative and four for the Judiciary. The thing is, the President still appears to want to preserve the Executive's five votes by appointing De Lima's temporary replacement in the JBC. If this is not an abuse of the presidential power to appoint, I do not know what else is.
Miyerkules, Hulyo 18, 2012
BILATERAL, NOT WAR NOR MULTILATERAL DIPLOMACY IS WHAT WE NEEDOMACY, IS BEST SOL
I learned from a recent Inquirer Editorial that Kalayan, part of the multi-contested Sratlys group in the South China Sea, is 285 nautical miles away from Palawan. This compares with the Scarborough Shoal, in turn less than 200 nautical mailes from Zambales. We have always said that the Scarborough belongs to us because it is very much within the Philippnes exclusive economic zone as provided by the Unclos. If the 200 EEZ is indeed the basis of a country's sovereignty on a contested island or reef, does it follow that the Kalayaan does not strictly speaking belongs to us?
But one wonders, if that is the case, then why is it that so far no other country with a standing claim on the Spratlys has ever formally contested our occupancy of Kalayaan, where we have even put up a municipality, even as it is clearly outside our 200 nautical miles of EEC? Two probable explanations would come to the fore in this connection. One, no other country may be as near to Kalayaan as we are. And two, we might be the first country, among those with standing claims on the Spratlys, to have put structures in Kalayaan, including a municipal hall and an elementary school where the Philippine flag is supposedly now flying high.
This brings me to my thesis. Why don't we also start putting up similar structures in the Scarborough shoals?
A recent news says another country, I don't recall which, already has existing structures there. Chances are, China will hasten to prevent us from doing so. There's really no harm in trying. Tila unahan at takutan lang naman yata 'yan, di ba. I remember -- one may dig up the Internet if he wants to -- there were several reports before the present administration when we have not been molested by China on the Scarborough as it is doing now. One news item then even reported that when we tried to drive away Chinese fishermen in the area, one of them who resisted arrest was killed by our own authorities there, while several were arrested. Those were the relatively good old days when certain mutual respect had existed between China and the Philippines.
It is indeed a mystery why China has suddenly become provocative or terribly defensive in this regard. Maybe, just maybe, we really have to talk to China on strictly one-on-one basis, just exactly the "bilateral" diplomacy that China keeps saying it will only agree on. Our disappointing experience with the ASEAN should tell us straight to our ears that we cannot rely any on multi-lateral diplomacy. As things are, parang nagiging arogante yata tayo, in saying we are building up our military capabilities through war equipment that the US is ready to provide us. Are we really prepared for war? And of all nations, against China?
As things are, why don't we seriously try to settle this strictly bilaterally - well perhaps in the same way that we sent VP Binay to China before to appeal for Filipins scheduled for execution then for being drug pushers. Of course, I know Binay failed in that vision. But who knows, we may succeed to at least convince China towards a joint exploration of the Scarborough Shoal resources between our two countries. After all, Binay was then appealing for criminals; with the Scarborough stand-off, we are exercising what we believe is our right. There's surely a hell of a difference between the two.
But one wonders, if that is the case, then why is it that so far no other country with a standing claim on the Spratlys has ever formally contested our occupancy of Kalayaan, where we have even put up a municipality, even as it is clearly outside our 200 nautical miles of EEC? Two probable explanations would come to the fore in this connection. One, no other country may be as near to Kalayaan as we are. And two, we might be the first country, among those with standing claims on the Spratlys, to have put structures in Kalayaan, including a municipal hall and an elementary school where the Philippine flag is supposedly now flying high.
This brings me to my thesis. Why don't we also start putting up similar structures in the Scarborough shoals?
A recent news says another country, I don't recall which, already has existing structures there. Chances are, China will hasten to prevent us from doing so. There's really no harm in trying. Tila unahan at takutan lang naman yata 'yan, di ba. I remember -- one may dig up the Internet if he wants to -- there were several reports before the present administration when we have not been molested by China on the Scarborough as it is doing now. One news item then even reported that when we tried to drive away Chinese fishermen in the area, one of them who resisted arrest was killed by our own authorities there, while several were arrested. Those were the relatively good old days when certain mutual respect had existed between China and the Philippines.
It is indeed a mystery why China has suddenly become provocative or terribly defensive in this regard. Maybe, just maybe, we really have to talk to China on strictly one-on-one basis, just exactly the "bilateral" diplomacy that China keeps saying it will only agree on. Our disappointing experience with the ASEAN should tell us straight to our ears that we cannot rely any on multi-lateral diplomacy. As things are, parang nagiging arogante yata tayo, in saying we are building up our military capabilities through war equipment that the US is ready to provide us. Are we really prepared for war? And of all nations, against China?
As things are, why don't we seriously try to settle this strictly bilaterally - well perhaps in the same way that we sent VP Binay to China before to appeal for Filipins scheduled for execution then for being drug pushers. Of course, I know Binay failed in that vision. But who knows, we may succeed to at least convince China towards a joint exploration of the Scarborough Shoal resources between our two countries. After all, Binay was then appealing for criminals; with the Scarborough stand-off, we are exercising what we believe is our right. There's surely a hell of a difference between the two.
Martes, Hulyo 17, 2012
ONLY IN THE PHILIPPNES
Indeed, politics Philippine-style is unique in the whole world!
First, former President Erap Estrada and VP Jejomar Binay agreed to form a coalition called UNA. With that, most of the potential senotariables for 2013 are expected to belong.
Then, realizing that what is left for the LP are a throng of relatively unknown characters and past losers, PNoy is planning to make his own merger of the LP, the NP and the NPC. Never mind the NPC because it is actually headed by his own uncle, Danding Cojuangco. But a merger of his LP with NP, at whose helm PNoy's most bitter rival in the previous presidency poll stands, is truly unthinkable. Alas, this may be one for the Guinness: it can happen only in the Philippines.
At any rate, since LP Binay may not really be considered in the opposition, chances are there will practically emerge no opposition ticket for senators in 2013. If at all, there would only be independents, very few of whom, if any, may be none, are expected to end up in the magic twelve. I really do not know if Villar of the NP, who is now showing signs of running again for president despite his previous vow he would not, is truly in favor of this unprecedented merger of practically all the political parties in this parts. Neither do I know why Mar Roxas, otherwise the LP's next presidential bet, should readily accede to this, and again be sidelined for president as he was in 2010.
At any rate, isn't all these political developments -- with practically only one group of candidates for senators belonging to the party in power -- a grand mockery of democracy plain and simple?
Meanwhile, one other unique thing is in process in the Judiciary. Imagine that with supposed-to-be Acting Chief Justice Carpio and JBC ex-officio Secretary Leila de Lima, both aspiring for the next Chief Justice, having to forfeit their positions in the JBC temporarily, what remain of the JBC are only the four regular members from the civil society, plus a representative from Congress. With the regular members all appointed by PNoy and thus expected to be totally beholden to him, how can we expect the selection of Corona's successor to be truly fair and equitable and not biased to PNoy's choice? Even if Tupas and Escudero, whose simultaneous belonging to the JBC is yet under question before the Supreme Court, should insist to vote for other than PNoy's protegee, would their 1/2 vote each win over the votes of four? You bettter tell that to the marines!
First, former President Erap Estrada and VP Jejomar Binay agreed to form a coalition called UNA. With that, most of the potential senotariables for 2013 are expected to belong.
Then, realizing that what is left for the LP are a throng of relatively unknown characters and past losers, PNoy is planning to make his own merger of the LP, the NP and the NPC. Never mind the NPC because it is actually headed by his own uncle, Danding Cojuangco. But a merger of his LP with NP, at whose helm PNoy's most bitter rival in the previous presidency poll stands, is truly unthinkable. Alas, this may be one for the Guinness: it can happen only in the Philippines.
At any rate, since LP Binay may not really be considered in the opposition, chances are there will practically emerge no opposition ticket for senators in 2013. If at all, there would only be independents, very few of whom, if any, may be none, are expected to end up in the magic twelve. I really do not know if Villar of the NP, who is now showing signs of running again for president despite his previous vow he would not, is truly in favor of this unprecedented merger of practically all the political parties in this parts. Neither do I know why Mar Roxas, otherwise the LP's next presidential bet, should readily accede to this, and again be sidelined for president as he was in 2010.
At any rate, isn't all these political developments -- with practically only one group of candidates for senators belonging to the party in power -- a grand mockery of democracy plain and simple?
Meanwhile, one other unique thing is in process in the Judiciary. Imagine that with supposed-to-be Acting Chief Justice Carpio and JBC ex-officio Secretary Leila de Lima, both aspiring for the next Chief Justice, having to forfeit their positions in the JBC temporarily, what remain of the JBC are only the four regular members from the civil society, plus a representative from Congress. With the regular members all appointed by PNoy and thus expected to be totally beholden to him, how can we expect the selection of Corona's successor to be truly fair and equitable and not biased to PNoy's choice? Even if Tupas and Escudero, whose simultaneous belonging to the JBC is yet under question before the Supreme Court, should insist to vote for other than PNoy's protegee, would their 1/2 vote each win over the votes of four? You bettter tell that to the marines!
Sabado, Hulyo 14, 2012
THE NP AND LP IN PHILIPPINE POLITICS
The Nationalista and the Liberal Parties are the oldest political parties in the Philippines, equivalent more or less to the Republican and Democratic parties in the United States. The ongoing coalition of the NP and the LP for the purpose of the 2013 elections is truly surprising. It also augurs somebody's abandonment of an oath he took after the 2010 polls and maybe -- just maybe -- a new threat to somebody else's political ambitions for 2016.
The NP, along with Lakas-CMD, corresponds somewhat to the Republican Party in the US. It belongs to the conservative wing of Philippine politics, whereas its principal rival, the Liberal Party, along with the parties belonging to the agglomeration of the People's Power government, all belong to the liberal wing of Philippine politics and somewhat corresponds to the Democratic Party of the United States. In the US, the political parties generally espouse their own expressed ideology or vision, bolstered by a written platform of government with specific goals, essentially different from one another. There, no one is yet known to abandon the political affiliation of his parents and grand parents. In the Philippines, the respective visions, ideology and platforms of the political parties have become less evident and more obscured, as the switching of party allegiances by individual politicians, especially prior to a major election has over time become the norm. Methinks this is one reason why this country is continually going to the dogs. The thing is politicians in these parts may not be faulted for that -- they would rather be practical than ideal -- because they are just exercising their constitutional right to join or not join an organization.
The emerging NP-LP marriage may be partly explained by the fact that after the coalition between Erap and Bnay into UNA, where most of the big-name senatoriables for 2013 belong, what essentially remained of the potential LP bets were relatively unknown, some even losers for senators in the previous elections. The same is more or less true with the NP's potential senatorial candidates. Along this light, the NP-LP merger becomes a practical option.
But here's the rob. After his defeat in 2010, Manny Villar, NP President, had publicly vowed he would bow out from politics and fully attend to his business. Methinks Villar has now suddenly forgotten or conveniently abandoned that vow. Handwritings are suddenly on the wall that he would try his luck once again for President, after PNoy's tenure. Alas, poor Mar Roxas! He had been over-shadowed by PNoy in 2010, he now stands to be eclipsed once more, this time by Villar, come 2016. Marahil, sasabihin ni PNoy: "Nakuha ko na ang gusto ko, bahala na kayo!" These are of course how I look as early as now in my crystal ball.
Talking of personal perceptions, aba'y garapalang gustong gaguhin yata tayong mga mamamayang Pilipino nitong sina PNoy at Villar! Di ba't sila ang pinakamahigpit magsabuyan ng putik noong 2010? Biglang
nalulon na ba nila kapwa ang mababahong putik na isinaboy nila sa isa't isa at ngayo'y naging parang mga bakla sila na naglalampungan? Ika nga naming mga Batanggenyo: "Aba'y kayo na lang ang magpaloko at makisawsaw sa kanilang lampungan. Kami'y hindi,.ala'y gago ga si Pilo?"
I really do not know what or how others feel, but this is going to be my political conviction when I cast my vote in both the 2013 senatorial and the 2016 presidential elections.
The NP, along with Lakas-CMD, corresponds somewhat to the Republican Party in the US. It belongs to the conservative wing of Philippine politics, whereas its principal rival, the Liberal Party, along with the parties belonging to the agglomeration of the People's Power government, all belong to the liberal wing of Philippine politics and somewhat corresponds to the Democratic Party of the United States. In the US, the political parties generally espouse their own expressed ideology or vision, bolstered by a written platform of government with specific goals, essentially different from one another. There, no one is yet known to abandon the political affiliation of his parents and grand parents. In the Philippines, the respective visions, ideology and platforms of the political parties have become less evident and more obscured, as the switching of party allegiances by individual politicians, especially prior to a major election has over time become the norm. Methinks this is one reason why this country is continually going to the dogs. The thing is politicians in these parts may not be faulted for that -- they would rather be practical than ideal -- because they are just exercising their constitutional right to join or not join an organization.
The emerging NP-LP marriage may be partly explained by the fact that after the coalition between Erap and Bnay into UNA, where most of the big-name senatoriables for 2013 belong, what essentially remained of the potential LP bets were relatively unknown, some even losers for senators in the previous elections. The same is more or less true with the NP's potential senatorial candidates. Along this light, the NP-LP merger becomes a practical option.
But here's the rob. After his defeat in 2010, Manny Villar, NP President, had publicly vowed he would bow out from politics and fully attend to his business. Methinks Villar has now suddenly forgotten or conveniently abandoned that vow. Handwritings are suddenly on the wall that he would try his luck once again for President, after PNoy's tenure. Alas, poor Mar Roxas! He had been over-shadowed by PNoy in 2010, he now stands to be eclipsed once more, this time by Villar, come 2016. Marahil, sasabihin ni PNoy: "Nakuha ko na ang gusto ko, bahala na kayo!" These are of course how I look as early as now in my crystal ball.
Talking of personal perceptions, aba'y garapalang gustong gaguhin yata tayong mga mamamayang Pilipino nitong sina PNoy at Villar! Di ba't sila ang pinakamahigpit magsabuyan ng putik noong 2010? Biglang
nalulon na ba nila kapwa ang mababahong putik na isinaboy nila sa isa't isa at ngayo'y naging parang mga bakla sila na naglalampungan? Ika nga naming mga Batanggenyo: "Aba'y kayo na lang ang magpaloko at makisawsaw sa kanilang lampungan. Kami'y hindi,.ala'y gago ga si Pilo?"
I really do not know what or how others feel, but this is going to be my political conviction when I cast my vote in both the 2013 senatorial and the 2016 presidential elections.
Huwebes, Hulyo 12, 2012
DOLPHY AS NATIONAL ARTIST
Alam ko, sigurado ako, at umaasa ako, na sa malao't madali ay makakamtan din ni Dolphy, albeit ironically posthumously, ang National Artist Award.
Pero kanina, habang binabasa ko ang column ni Randy David sa Inquirer, titled "Portrait of a Filipino as Dolphy," ay medyo napukaw ang aking kamalayan sa kanyang sinabing dalwang mukha ng buhay ang nangingibabaw na inilarawan ni Dolphy sa mga roles na kanyang ginampanan sa pelikula sa buong panahon ng kanyang pagiging hari ng komedya. Ang una, na napanood ng marami sa atin sa pagitan ng dekada singkuwenta at setenta, ay ang katauhan ng isang baklang walang anu-ano ay biglang titili at iigkas ang mga kamay -- gaya ni Facifica Falayfay. Ang ikalawa ay ang larawan ng isang ama sa "John and Marsha," nakatira "Along da Riles" at di gaanong binibigyang-pansin, ang totoo'y tinatawanan pa nga, ang kahirapan ng buhay ng isang iskuwater. Gaya ng alam ng lahat, sa pagdaan ng panahon, ang role ng isang bakla ay unti-unting natabunan ng karakter ni Juan Porontong at Kevin Kosme sa sumunod niyang mga pelkula.
Alam rin natin na noong mga dekada singkuwemta-setenta, ang mga bading ay lihim na dinudusta at tinatawanan sa lipunan, bagama't ang katotohanang ito ay matagumpay na naitatago ng mga jokes at entertainment na ibinibigay ni Dolphy sa balana sa kanyang pagganap sa mga roles na ito. Sariwa pa marahil sa ating gunita kung papaanong si Dolphy ay nilalait at dinudusta araw araw ni Panchito Alba sa kanyang role bilang baklang kapatid ni Susan Roces sa "Jack en Jill." Alalaon baga, ang mga dekadang yaon ay panahong kahit totoo ay pilit itinatago ng bawa't Pilipino ang pagiging bakla. Noon, aminin man natin o hindi, ang mga bading ay itinuturing na sumpa sa pamilya at sa lipunang kanilang sinulputan.
Passed forward to the present, ngayon ay hindi na! Maraming bading ngayon ang iginagalang na sa lipunan, lalo na sa movie industry kung saan halos lahat ng magagaling na direktor ay hindi na itinatagong sila ay bakla. Si Rustom Padilla nga, noo'y isang versatile action at romantic star, ay si BB Gandanghari na ngayon kung tawagin. Of course, meron pa ring ilan diyan na alam ng lahat na bading ay hindi matanggap at pilit pa ring pinalalabas sa madla na siya ay tunay na macho at gigolo. Pero huwag na nating palawigin pa ang usapan dito, baka makabanggit pa ako ng ilang pangalan at mapahabla ng libel. Ang mahalaga, ang mga bading sa lipunan, ang ilan nga ay senador pa, ay di na gasinong dinudusta. They are now the strongest advocates of gender equality in our midst and times, as each one of them continues to seek his rightful place under the sun.
Ngayo'y naisip ko lang: hindi kaya magkaroon ng alinglangan ang mga transgender groups in Philippine society sa karapatan ni Dolphy sa national artist award? Bakit 'kanyo? Aba'y di ba't si Dolphy ang unang naglarawan sa mga bakla bilang karakter ng lipunan na nilalait, dinudusta at tinatawanan? Sa kabilang dako, hindi naman kaya dapat pasalamatan ng mga bading si Dolphy sapagka't kung hindi sa kanyang mga roles bilang tinatawanang mga bakla, marahil ay di sila magigising sa katotohanang di sila dapat na dinudusta, manapa'y dapat igalang sabawa't lipunan ng tao kanilang ginagalawan?
Well, take your pick! I am leaving these questions to my readers in the light of one very vital qualification that a national artist must possess under the government's existing rules And that is, "The content or form of his works must have contributed to building a Filipino sense of nationhood."
Pero kanina, habang binabasa ko ang column ni Randy David sa Inquirer, titled "Portrait of a Filipino as Dolphy," ay medyo napukaw ang aking kamalayan sa kanyang sinabing dalwang mukha ng buhay ang nangingibabaw na inilarawan ni Dolphy sa mga roles na kanyang ginampanan sa pelikula sa buong panahon ng kanyang pagiging hari ng komedya. Ang una, na napanood ng marami sa atin sa pagitan ng dekada singkuwenta at setenta, ay ang katauhan ng isang baklang walang anu-ano ay biglang titili at iigkas ang mga kamay -- gaya ni Facifica Falayfay. Ang ikalawa ay ang larawan ng isang ama sa "John and Marsha," nakatira "Along da Riles" at di gaanong binibigyang-pansin, ang totoo'y tinatawanan pa nga, ang kahirapan ng buhay ng isang iskuwater. Gaya ng alam ng lahat, sa pagdaan ng panahon, ang role ng isang bakla ay unti-unting natabunan ng karakter ni Juan Porontong at Kevin Kosme sa sumunod niyang mga pelkula.
Alam rin natin na noong mga dekada singkuwemta-setenta, ang mga bading ay lihim na dinudusta at tinatawanan sa lipunan, bagama't ang katotohanang ito ay matagumpay na naitatago ng mga jokes at entertainment na ibinibigay ni Dolphy sa balana sa kanyang pagganap sa mga roles na ito. Sariwa pa marahil sa ating gunita kung papaanong si Dolphy ay nilalait at dinudusta araw araw ni Panchito Alba sa kanyang role bilang baklang kapatid ni Susan Roces sa "Jack en Jill." Alalaon baga, ang mga dekadang yaon ay panahong kahit totoo ay pilit itinatago ng bawa't Pilipino ang pagiging bakla. Noon, aminin man natin o hindi, ang mga bading ay itinuturing na sumpa sa pamilya at sa lipunang kanilang sinulputan.
Passed forward to the present, ngayon ay hindi na! Maraming bading ngayon ang iginagalang na sa lipunan, lalo na sa movie industry kung saan halos lahat ng magagaling na direktor ay hindi na itinatagong sila ay bakla. Si Rustom Padilla nga, noo'y isang versatile action at romantic star, ay si BB Gandanghari na ngayon kung tawagin. Of course, meron pa ring ilan diyan na alam ng lahat na bading ay hindi matanggap at pilit pa ring pinalalabas sa madla na siya ay tunay na macho at gigolo. Pero huwag na nating palawigin pa ang usapan dito, baka makabanggit pa ako ng ilang pangalan at mapahabla ng libel. Ang mahalaga, ang mga bading sa lipunan, ang ilan nga ay senador pa, ay di na gasinong dinudusta. They are now the strongest advocates of gender equality in our midst and times, as each one of them continues to seek his rightful place under the sun.
Ngayo'y naisip ko lang: hindi kaya magkaroon ng alinglangan ang mga transgender groups in Philippine society sa karapatan ni Dolphy sa national artist award? Bakit 'kanyo? Aba'y di ba't si Dolphy ang unang naglarawan sa mga bakla bilang karakter ng lipunan na nilalait, dinudusta at tinatawanan? Sa kabilang dako, hindi naman kaya dapat pasalamatan ng mga bading si Dolphy sapagka't kung hindi sa kanyang mga roles bilang tinatawanang mga bakla, marahil ay di sila magigising sa katotohanang di sila dapat na dinudusta, manapa'y dapat igalang sabawa't lipunan ng tao kanilang ginagalawan?
Well, take your pick! I am leaving these questions to my readers in the light of one very vital qualification that a national artist must possess under the government's existing rules And that is, "The content or form of his works must have contributed to building a Filipino sense of nationhood."
Lunes, Hulyo 9, 2012
VILLAQUINO
Noong 2010 elections, pinaiimbistigahan ni Villar 'yong mga anomalya ni Aquino. Gayundin, pinaiibistigahan naman ni Villar 'yong mga anomalya ni Aquino. Nagsabuyan ng tae ang dalawang ito.
Sa darating na 2013 elections, mukhang kinain na ng bawa't isa ang kani-kanilang tae at basura. Isisigaw ng dalawa sa mamboboto: ang grupo namin ang pinakamalinis na lingkod ng bayan. Samahan ninyo ang aming mga kandidato!
Ano ba ito, ginagago tayong mga mamamayan. They tell that to the Marines. Ewan ko sa inyo, ako hindi ako papayag na gaguhin ng dalawang ito. Parehong tae sila sa aking paningn.
Sa darating na 2013 elections, mukhang kinain na ng bawa't isa ang kani-kanilang tae at basura. Isisigaw ng dalawa sa mamboboto: ang grupo namin ang pinakamalinis na lingkod ng bayan. Samahan ninyo ang aming mga kandidato!
Ano ba ito, ginagago tayong mga mamamayan. They tell that to the Marines. Ewan ko sa inyo, ako hindi ako papayag na gaguhin ng dalawang ito. Parehong tae sila sa aking paningn.
Mag-subscribe sa:
Mga Post (Atom)