Because an actor is only as good as his last movie

08-30-10 · Dream home, The Mommy Journals Tags: food, suburbia · 11 comments

The title… I’m sure you’ve heard that said before. Sometimes, it’s true with bloggers too. You have to better than your last post or you’re yesterday’s news. Some bloggers deal with that by trying to outscoop everyone else, including media. Just like in the Bambee de la Paz case. Even before the media got wind of Ms. De la Paz’s blog entry, and even before an investigation could be conducted, some bloggers who did not even witness the incident convicted the people that Ms. De la Paz accused of wrong doing.

And why not? The story was the scoop of the week. Weeks even. In a world where the mighty Google is god, you have to be first or you’ll get crumbs in the page ranking wars. So when, after investigation, it turned out that Ms. De la Paz’s recollection of the incident was not exactly accurate, I wanted to laugh at the faces of the the noisiest among the noisy bloggers.

What’s my point? Surely, it’s not just to insult the sleazy and the tacky?

The point is, sometimes, I can write about so much because there are things worth writing about. Things that drive me. But there are slow days too. Other bloggers deal with the dearth by choosing the most talked about news item, copy a block off some news report, republish it in their blogs with a link and that’s that.

But, baby, that ain’t my style. I don’t really want to write about Kris Aquino. Well, perhaps, except to say that her appointment as Ambassador for Dengue shocked me. And, last Saturday, in a seminar-workshop attended by members of the media where I was one of the speakers, I said as much during my talk: “I don’t get it. Ambassador para makipag-usap sa lamok?” For non-Filipino speakers, I was just wondering why we’d need an ambassador to talk to mosquitoes.

I don’t want to write about Commissioner on Human Rights Coco Quisumbing either. Sure, I’m shocked. Sure, I question her professional ethics in asking a male reporter to interview her in the Ladies’ Room while she put on her make-up. But when she decided to play the control freak during a press conference? It does appear that she went overboard and she could have been nicer. But knowing how unruly media can get, well… After all, a government press conference is not really supposed to be about earning pogi points. And media really ain’t supposed to be the one in control. We’ve just gotten so used to that and everyone just acts as though media must be courted all the time. And that bloats some egos. So, that’s really all I’ll say about Coco Quisumbing. I know that lambasting her would earn links and accolade from other blogs, but I’m not going to do it. I’ll just show you the video.

But, you may be wondering… with all the news reports circulating out there, surely, there’s something interesting enough to elicit an opinion out of me? I told you, I write about things that drive me. And, right now, the one thing that drives me is getting out of suburbia. It’s been driving me for months. And the reason why, over the weeks before last, this blog was getting updated only once a week. House-hunting. Online and actually visiting some houses.

Giving up my dream home, am I? Well, a home is a dream home for so long as it serves its purpose, right? But maintaining two houses — this one and the rented condo near the kids’ school — is driving us crazy. Speedy’s losing weight (at least, I think so) from the constant driving back and forth. And, now that the girls are growing up, they feel isolated here even when they’re only home on weekends. I’m beginning to feel the isolation too. That’s probably why I’ve started accepting some invitations — to social and official functions, to deliver talks… Some, not all.

So, we might rent out this house or sell it. My mother-in-law (she loves this house) and most of my friends whom we’ve entertained here think we shouldn’t sell. We’re still at that point when we’re entertaining all options. But if you’re interested in a weekend retreat or something, don’t worry about the drunken karaoke singing. I threw some grenades months ago (figuratively, of course) and the neighborhood is quiet once more. You’ll hear crickets on clear balmy nights and frogs croaking when it rains. Oh, and absolutely no flooding.

So, not really having anything interesting to write about that can top the last few posts, instead of playing the sleazy game of trying to outscoop whomever and scrambling for links, let me just direct you to two things are more interesting than my lack of interest in whatever “breaking news” there might be at the moment. (more…)

A note from a cousin-in-law about Filipinos violently killed in Beijing five years ago

08-27-10 · Sassy Lawyer Tags: crime, law · 30 comments

My cousin-in-law, Ramon Sunico, posted a note in Facebook about Filipino tourists who were hacked to death in Beijing in 2005. Please note that I double checked the facts mentioned before reposting the Facebook note here. Here are two relevant links you might want to see before reading the rest.

American killed, another wounded in Beijing knife attack (August 9, 2008):

The last known fatal knife attack against foreigners occurred on April 19, 2005, when a man ran amok near the Mao Zedong Mausoleum in Tiananmen Square, stabbing to death an oil executive and his daughter from the Philippines, Emmanuel Madrigal and Regina Mia…

Human rights in China (September 2005 report):

Wang Gongzuo, a 25-year-old man from Jiangsu, was sentenced to death on September 29 after the Beijing No. 2 Intermediate People’s Court found him guilty of killing a retired Filipino oil company executive and his teenage daughter in Tiananmen Square in April 2005. The victims, Emmanuel Madrigal and Regina Mia, were visiting Beijing on a package tour. The motivation for the attack, undertaken in broad daylight, is not known, but according to a report posted on the Court’s internal website, Wang, a farmer from Jiangsu Province, attacked his victims “to vent his anger against society.” Wang waived his right to appeal after the sentencing. Four Filipino diplomats attended the trial.

The text of the note is reproduced in toto. It is meant as food for thought and not to cause more agitation. (more…)

The Philippine Bus and Miss Universe: A Rejoinder

08-26-10 · Sassy Lawyer Tags: culture, politics · 70 comments

If you haven’t yet, please go read Daniel Wagner’s article on The Huffington Post. I’ve read it, it hurt reading it but I have to concede that many of his observations are true — in part.

Mr. Wagner asks:

Politically, the Philippines has descended into an ongoing competition between political dynasties: Marcos, Arroyo, and yes, Aquino. What I don’t understand is, why do Filipinos continue to vote them in, election after election? Is it because of a lack of viable alternatives? No. Is it because of political apathy? Possibly. Or is it because they have no expectations that anything will change, regardless of who is in power? Definitely.

He is talking about the majority of the Filipinos which, as the principle of majority rule goes, encompasses all of us. It hurts that I find myself lumped among people whose views I do not share. It hurts even more that I have to wear the label that they have imposed on me because, as an individual and a minority, I live with the decision of the majority even when, in my mind and heart, there is a voice that never stops screaming in protest. In particular, I am referring to my fate of accepting the decision of the majority every election year — a fate to which I have become so apathetic that I have totally abandoned any kind of participation in elections. I haven’t voted in more than two decades. I kid you not.

But let me answer the questions that Mr. Wagner asks. He lived in the Philippines from 2003 to 2007; I have lived here all my life.

… why do Filipinos continue to vote them in, election after election? Is it because of a lack of viable alternatives?

Yes, but there’s more to it than that. The only people who can afford to run for public office are those who 1) can afford it or 2) who have enough financial backers. Yes, running for public office is expensive. We’re not talking of petty cash here. You have to have very deep pockets if you want to get elected. Those who can afford it belong to a social class way above the stratum to which the majority belongs. The wealthy. The elite. If they spend their money, they intend to recover their investment.

Those who may have no personal funds but who enjoy the backing of others run for office with strings attached. Businessmen do not make campaign contributions unless there is something in it for them if and when the candidate wins. A candidate who, even before getting elected, is already beholden to those who have spent for his campaign is far from someone who is free to make independent decisions.

So, yes, it is true that there is a lack of viable alternatives. Our options are so limited that there are no genuine choices. That’s why we’re left with the likes of the Arroyos, the Aquinos, the Marcoses, the Revillas, the Cayetanos, etcetera, etcetera. They have the money and, by virtue of their parentage, they have the connections with those who have even more money.

But a voter does not choose one and vote for him simply because, in his mind, he is the best choice among the bad choices. He votes because, all his life, he has been made to believe that it is his duty as a citizen and that his vote can lead to change. A legacy of American-style democracy. The irony is that while he thinks he is committing a patriotic and visionary act, the reality is that he becomes a tool for the moneyed class. Collectively, voters validate a lop-sided political system. A voter is presented with options that are no more than tokens (i.e., the candidates), he chooses one thinking it is his duty as a responsible citizen and, after all the votes are cast and tallied, they serve as proof that the people do want to be ruled by yet another member of an old political family. And that validation is so necessary in a modern democracy. Without it, a government would be labeled a dictatorship.

Why do you think people kill to rig elections? Because the official result is a validation that every candidate badly needs to back up his ascent to power.

Now, let’s zero in on that one word — change. Why would anyone tie his hope for change in that single act of voting?

… why do Filipinos continue to vote them in, election after election? … is it because they have no expectations that anything will change, regardless of who is in power? (more…)

The public’s right to know

08-25-10 · Sassy Lawyer Tags: media · 24 comments

In the wake of a House Bill proposing media blackout “on all delicate police and military movements in times of crisis or emergency” the Kapisanan ng mga Brodkasters sa Pilipinas (KBP) made this statement.

…KBP president Herman Basbaño said the media should not be blamed for airing blow-by-blow coverage of the hostage-taking incident since it is merely performing its duty to keep the public informed.

He maintained that the media cannot be prevented from covering newsworthy events like the hostage-taking the other day since media blackout will be a violation of the public’s right to know. [Manila Bulletin]

The KBP is obviously confused. Or trying to confuse us. There is a difference between satisfying a curiosity and the right to know. The public was curious about the goings-on at the Quirino grandstand but the public could not demand, as a matter of right, that it was entitled to every bit of information about them.

The pubic has a right to know how taxpayers’ money is spent. The public has a right to know every time the government secures a loan because it is the taxpayer who will pay for it. The public has a right to know the details of debates and discussions that go with every proposed bill because laws affect everyone. The public has a right to know the nitty-gritty of every transaction that the government enters into so all documents must be open to public scrutiny. The public can demand, by right, access to the attendance and expenditures records of every public official because it is the public that spends for him.

But the public does not have the right to know anything and everything about everyone and every incident. If it were otherwise, the media can make public reports about a person’s life and justify it by claiming that the public has a right to know — paparazzi style. In that case, no person would enjoy privacy.

So, no, we don’t have a right to know whether this-or-that mayor is really bald and is only wearing a wig or whether he suffers from alipunga or hemorrhoids or already incapable of acquiring an erection. Yet, we are made to believe otherwise by introducing us to the concept of “public property.”

Who do you think came up with the concept that celebrities and public personas are “public property”? If you don’t know it yet, it is glued to mass media’s convoluted interpretation of the public’s right to know. Slavery has been outlawed in every modern society and media still infringe on people’s privacy by claiming they are public property. No person, no matter his public stature, is anyone’s property. But media would have us believe otherwise because if there were no “public property” media would be deprived of a huge chunk of its income. So, digging up dirt and scandal in the private lives of public personalities, justified by their being “public property”, has become the norm.

But does the public have a right to know every step that the police takes in a hostage-taking situation? Is the public entitled, by right, to a blow-by-blow televised account of every movement in a crime scene? What benefits will the public derive from it? (more…)

Insensitivity. Sobriety. Déjà vu.

08-25-10 · Sassy Lawyer Tags: crime, culture · 37 comments

When Hong Kong journalist Chip Tsao’s tacky style rubbed Filipino sensitivity in the wrong way, Filipinos started calling the Chinese terrible names. Just check the comment thread in the linked article. Narrow-minded, isn’t it, considering that Chip Tsao was one person and his writing was not necessarily a reflection of the way all Chinese nationals thought. Still, the racist remarks persisted.

Now, the tables have been turned. A lone gunman took hostages, many of them tourists from Hong Kong, and, in the aftermath, angry Hong Kong residents are calling us names. Filipinos working in Hong Kong are worried.

But not every Hong Kong Chinese is acting from irrational anger. From South China Morning Post’s August 24 editorial, as posted by Raissa Robles:

But what is not comprehensible is why people have vented their frustrations on Filipinos. They’ve done nothing wrong, after all. The actions of a unit of police commandos was not their doing. Tarring them with the same brush of incompetence isn’t right.

Such behaviour towards them smacks of racism. A tinge of that is on show in the government’s response to the tragedy. It has issued its highest travel alert for those thinking of going to the Philippines. Based on a single isolated incident, it has determined that a severe threat exists and that all travel should be avoided….

Yes, sobriety should be the order of the day. No Filipino, after all, wants to be blamed for the crime of one man. But when Filipinos themselves publicly display — FLAUNT is a more accurate description — their insensitivity to the grief of the victims’ families and the outrage that is now widespread in Hong Kong, the call for sobriety becomes a dicey issue. Reader Twin-Skies posted a link where I found these photos.

I claim no ownership over these photos. They appear here for context — to illustrate what I mean when I say that the insensitivity of some — civilians and policemen alike — is making it even harder for the enraged people of Hong Kong to find a sense of sobriety.

How callous can some people be? I can almost forgive the immaturity of the teenagers — almost, but not quite (if I were their parent, they would be grounded until they understand and acknowledge their tactlessness) — but policemen smiling and posing as though they were visiting a tourist attraction? Just look at them. Some are Crime Scene operatives but they don’t look like they’re taking photos of the crime scene, do they? (more…)

HK residents advised to avoid all travel to the Philippines

08-23-10 · Sassy Lawyer Tags: Asia, crime, travel · 77 comments

In view of the hostage-taking incident which left at least four tourists dead, this announcement by the Hong Kong Security Bureau shouldn’t be surprising.

I guess the Philippines won’t be earning much from tourism in the coming months.

What we lose in tourism, we gain in global attention. Four top trending topics in Twitter, a live coverage by CNN and a front page article in the New York Times.

Ah, infamy. It was like watching Die Hard except this story was for real.

I have a few thoughts. (more…)

Divorce or no divorce: the raging debate

08-22-10 · Sassy Lawyer, The Mommy Journals Tags: culture, law, marriage, religion · 53 comments

When the Gabriela Women’s Party filed House Bill No. 1799 (Divorce Bill, for brevity), the long dormant debate over the legalization of divorce in the Philippines was revived. Since the effectivity of the Family Code in the late 1980s with its provision for marriage annulment, the divorce issue has taken a back seat with most people thinking that annulment is just as good as divorce especially since one of the grounds for annulment, the psychological incapacity of one of the parties to fulfill marital obligations, can cover almost anything.

But annulment is not the equivalent of divorce.

Grounds for annulment must exist at the time of the marriage. And in cases of alcoholism, drug addiction, homosexuality or having a sexually transmissible disease, there must have been concealment at the time of the marriage, the concealment constituting fraud.

In other words, if one of the spouses turns into an alcoholic, drug addict or a homosexual, or acquires STD during the marriage, annulment is not available to the aggrieved spouse. Annulment is not even available in case of repeated violence or attempt on the life one spouse by the other. The only recourse is legal separation which does not allow remarriage because legal separation does not dissolve the marriage but only allows the couple to live separately and to have the community property (or conjugal property, where proper) dissolved.

Divorce, on the other hand, dissolves a valid marriage and the parties to the dissolved marriage acquire a new civil status — divorced. There is no declaration of nullity; the divorce judgment simply ends the marriage.

The Divorce Bill specifies the grounds for divorce. To make it simple, the grounds are the same as those for legal separation OR psychological incapacity to comply with essential marriage obligations OR irreconcilable differences. And it is that part about “irreconcilable differences” that make people think that the Divorce Bill is promoting whimsical divorces, Las Vegas style. But more on that later.

First let’s go deeper into the issue of divorce in its more generic sense and take on the “usual” arguments against it. Who are the usual antagonists? (more…)

Lessors have their problems too

08-15-10 · Sassy Lawyer Tags: crime, law · 19 comments

A couple of months ago, I wrote about problems we had with the management of the dorm-hotel near Sam’s school where she used to stay. They gave us hell before returning the security deposit and only after I threatened to sue their asses did they hand over the money. Well, here’s a different perspective on the lessor-lessee relationship. This has nothing to do with that dorm-hotel. This happened to a friend, a fellow lawyer, who visited and had dinner at the house recently.

My friend, let’s just call her Atty. E., co-owns with her siblings a house left by their parents. Since Atty. E. and all her siblings are financially independent and none had need of the house, they decided to rent it out. It was good going for a while until the last lessee. A family — husband, wife, teenaged daughter, and three other younger children. Atty. E.’s policy is three months’ advanced payment in cash. The lessees asked if the third month payment could be covered by check as they were short of cash. Atty. E. agreed.

Then, the check bounced. Atty. E. asked them to cover the amount in cash, the lessees didn’t and eventually refused to talk to her. When the rent for the fourth month fell due, no payment was made. So, what was Atty. E. to do? Most lessors would have filed a case for ejectment, a civil action. But Atty. E. is an attorney and she knew just how useless that would be. She filed a criminal case. Bouncing Checks Law which, in the Philippines, constitutes estafa.

But Atty. E. did more than file a criminal case. She investigated the background of her lessees. She discovered that the family had been engaged in the same modus operandi for the last ten years. They had been moving from house to house — three of which where in the same village as Atty. E.’s house (it’s a huge village, nine phases in all). They would rent a house, fail to pay rent and, if the house came furnished, they would disappear with the owner’s appliances and furniture.

So, my friend was smart. After learning that she was dealing with professional scammers, she decided to turn the table on them. She got in touch with the previous lessors and taught them that ejectment was no use and to file cases for estafa instead. She also told them where to find the family so they could demand payment and have arrest warrants served if they decide to file criminal cases. (more…)

Quality, not lengthy, education

08-09-10 · The Mommy Journals Tags: education, government, school · 54 comments

When what’s-his-name congressman came up with the suggestion a couple of weeks ago to extend education by two years, I posted an update on Twitter that what we need is better quality education and not an additional two years. I thought a short comment like that was all that the suggestion deserved — I so believed that nothing would come out of it.

Today, weeks later, what’s-his-name’s idea is all over the news.

I’m almost sure that the suggestion is something that owners of private elementary and secondary schools would welcome. Two more years means more earnings for them. But, aside from them, who else stand to benefit from a lengthier education?

Not the students, for sure. Off the bat, I can already think of three reasons — and I didn’t even need to exert any effort.

First, consider the shortage of facilities in public schools. And I mean shortage both in quality and quantity. Not enough classrooms, not enough desks, not enough books in the library (in some public schools, the library is just a library in name), not enough laboratory equipment, not enough teachers.

Picture a typical public school with finite resources — a perimeter, a specific number of classrooms in a specific number of buildings occupying a specific physical space. Let’s say that the school has a thousand students (and, sheesh, that’s a modest estimate when we talk of public schools but since this is just an example, let’s stick with a thousand students), half of whom are in the day sections and the other half in the afternoon sections (let’s not forget that some public high schools have evening sections). Let’s say the same number of students per level. We all know that with so many subjects, it is very difficult to cram everything within half the day. But there’s no choice. Either that or prevent half of the usual student population from enrolling. So, we already have a kind of half-baked education.

If two more years are added, without an increase in the per level ratio, there would be an additional five hundred students in that school. Again, that’s being conservative because with the rate of population growth, the number of new students every year does get higher. It’s a progression (at least in numbers because you can also look at it as a regression from the context of the ability to provide and acquire quality education). If there are a hundred first graders this year, chances are, there will be a hundred twenty next year. Congress snubbed the Reproductive Health Bill, didn’t it, so the population growth rate is not likely to go down any time soon.

Where will you put the additional students — the ones who should have graduated already? Schools are already crammed and we make the situation worse? (more…)

McDonald’s Happy Meal and other marketing gimmicks

08-05-10 · The Mommy Journals Tags: business, consumerism, food, money, positive parenting · 20 comments

With the rising incidence of obesity among children in the U.S., a group is calling for “an end to commercialization of childhood.” A case of luring kids to eat junk food by enticing them with toys. The most recent target is McDonald’s Happy Meal. It ought to be a global campaign. And every food company guilty of the practice should be targeted — including makers of breakfast cereals who like to occasionally include a toy inside the box.

We’ve been there, believe me. There was a time when the girls would whine for a Happy Meal just to get the toy inside. Fortunately, that phase was short-lived. Very short-lived. Don’t encourage it and they stop whining after a while and they collected something like five toys throughout their childhood (well, excluding the ones that the doting grandmother — my mother — supplied). My belief: buy food because you want to eat it, not for something associated with it. In the first place, the toy inside a Happy Meal isn’t free. The meal is so packaged so that the customer pays for the toy. So, never mind the freebie mentality.

But, more than that, I have a thing against mixing eating with playing. I never felt comfortable with the set-up of having a playground inside a restaurant. Kids have a right to their time for play but not during meal time. I honestly cannot remember a time when my daughters ventured inside one of those plastic playgrounds.

The sad truth, of course, is that such a set-up — Happy Meals and plastic playgrounds — have become the norm. And it’s not like the marketing strategy is new nor unique. It is something that has been employed by just about every business entity. No, not the toys, but the illogical association which, ironically, makes a product more beguiling to consumers.

You don’t believe me? Try this. Why are alcohol ads crammed with half-naked women? Because the message is that drinking is a manly thing and that is attractive to women. Argumentum ad hominem, obviously, but will consumers notice? The businessman knows they won’t — he has hired a psychologist who has studied the behavioral patterns of consumers and this expensive hachet man assures him that since time immemorial, there are foolproof formulas — all based on logical fallacies, believe it or not — that prove how easy it is to manipulate consumer trends. Today’s fast food chains, including McDonald’s with its Happy Meal, are just applying the principles of those foolproof formulas.

Formulas. Yes, plural. Let’s have another example. Why do companies pay millions to celebrity endorsers? (more…)