Manila Bulletin Editorial Article

Local govts need help with crowded

prisons
Three weeks after President Duterte assumed office in June,
2016, the Philippine National Police (PNP) reported that 8,110
drug users and pushers had been arrested in the period May 10-
July 10, while 35,276 had surrendered to the police. This was on
top of thousands killed in police operations.
By September, 2016, 26,000 had been arrested, while 730,000 had
surrendered. In towns and cities all over the country today, many
prisons are filled with arrested and surrendered drug addicts. Even
without the drug cases, our prisons were already crowded beyond
their capacities.
Prison space is only part of the problem. One provincial governor
said the police and judicial systems are heavily overworked. There
are not enough prosecutors and judges to attend to the hundreds of
new cases.
After all the paper work, the local governments have to provide for
the prisoners. Most towns have no ready funds for the food or
thousands of new prisoners. And what of the need to rehabilitate
the drug addicts? That is an additional expense that is not provided
or in their budgets.
After the all-out drive against the drug menace, the Duterte
administration is now moving on to other concerns of the nation.
 The President has now ordered a campaign against illegal
gambling.
In the recently approved 2017 National Budget, a total of P850
billion has been set aside for infrastructures to be carried out by the
Department of Public Works and Highways and the Department of
Transportation. This is the core of an employment program aimed
at reducing mass poverty in the country. There are other billions
for agricultural development, another pillar of the anti-poverty
program.
All these undertakings are welcome for they herald a new era of
inclusive economic development for the nation. Government
spending should stimulate the private secto to push its own growth
programs, so that at the end of this year, we should have an even
bigger Gross Development Program (GDP) growth than the 7.1 we
had at the end of 2016.
But in all this push for growth and development, let us not forget
the thousands of people affected by the administrations first
program of action, the drug addicts who surrendered to the
authorities and now need help. Many of them are now detained in
local prisons in the care of local governments who need help with
their budget problems. In the long run, they will also be needing
help for their rehabilitation.
 Manila Bulletin Editorial Article
Making sense of Trumps foreign
policy
Just as expected, the opening weeks of the Donald Trump
presidency have been accompanied by provocation, partial
capitulation, and dizzying combination of defiance and assurance.
As a result, many allies incessantly scratch their heads, trying to
figure out what to make out of the new American presidents
foreign policy, particularly here in Asia.
On one hand, there is cause for worry and deep concern.
Consistent with its America first principle, the Trump
administration has significantly toughened up the superpowers
immigration and trade policy. In fact, in these two areas, we are
beginning to see the folly of not taking the new occupant of White
House both literally and seriously. Sometimes, Trump really means
what he says and we should recognize this with unshakable
sobriety, not wishful thinking.
Just weeks into office, Trump resurrected a bygone anti-
immigration policy approach, harkening back to the late-19th
century, when America, amid a populist mini-revolt, began to
restrict the entry of Asians, particularly Chinese, under the
notorious California Anti-Chinese Legislations (1852-1878).
In a stroke of a pen, Trump effectively categorized tens of millions
of ordinary people as potential security threat to his country.
Refugees and citizens from seven Muslim-majority countries faced
either temporary or permanent ban. What ensued was nothing short
of humanitarian disaster and soft power suicide, as the world
painfully watched a five-year-old kid being handcuffed, parents
separated from children, refugees literally left in the air, and scores
of valid visa holders facing detention, interrogation, and, in some
cases, deportation. It was a total mayhem.
Trumps executive order was so divisive and controversial that
some have come to fear the prospect of a constitutional crisis and
civil strife, as thousands of protests and dozens of courts around
the country feverishly fight back against what they see as a
negation of what America stands for. The de facto Muslim ban
isnt the only indication of troubling consistency between Trumps
provocative and inflammatory election promises, on one hand, and
actual policy, on the other.
Earlier, Trump also scrapped the Transpacific Partnership
Agreement (TPP), a pan-regional free trade framework aimed at
deepening economic integration between America and its Pacific
partners, from Chile to Vietnam. The TPP was in fact the
centerpiece of the Obama administrations Pivot to Asia policy,
aimed at constraining Chinas rising influence and military
assertiveness in the region. America will pay strategic costs for
this protectionist turn.
With the TPP down the drain, Beijing has become the undisputed
economic power in Asia, well poised to push for alternative trading
arrangements, namely the Regional Comprehensive Economic
Partnership (RCEP) and Free Trade Area for the Asia-Pacific
agreement (FTAAP).
 The implications are mindboggling. For seven decades, America
has been the guarantor of a liberal international order, defined by
free trade, free movement of capital and technology, and
increasingly free movement of (white-collar and, to a lesser extent,
blue-collar) labor across borders. In fact, America is fundamentally
a nation of immigrants. All of a sudden, the country seems like a
fortress, keeping away hordes of immigrants and refugees at bay.
 Manila Bulletin Editorial Article
New US president assumes office today
amidst protests
A new American president takes his oath of office today in
Washington, DC, with the usual inauguration events threatened by
protests of all kinds planned by various groups opposing or
questioning some position or opinion or plan announced by
incoming President Donald Trump during the recent national
election.
As in all previous presidential inaugurals, the swearing-in
ceremony will be held at the US Capitol Buildings West Front
starting at 9:30 a.m., with Trump to be sworn in at 12 noon (12
midnight, Manila time) by Supreme Court Chief Justice John
Roberts Jr. An inaugural parade will start at 3 p.m. from the US
Capitol Building to the White House.
In the days leading to todays inauguration, protests of all kinds
have been organized by dozens of groups, along with smaller
protest actions in other cities in the country to protest President
Trumps repeated jibes on immigrants, especially Muslim
immigrants, Mexican, and other Latin-American illegals, and his
remarks on women.
The biggest protest is a Womens March planned for tomorrow,
January 21, to call attention to civil and human rights issues. Two
 Los Angeles women launched a project calling on women
nationwide to knit symbolic pink hats pussyhats to be worn
by those attending the Women March.
The official inauguration itself will be boycotted by about 50
Democratic congressmen, including Georgia Rep. John Lewis who
said he doesnt see Trump as a legitimate president because of
the Russians hacking the US elections to help him. The other
legislators cited his alleged fascism, sexism, xenophobia, and
bigotry.
But the inauguration of President Trump will proceed as it has
proceeded in all previous inaugurals in American history. Defeated
Democratic Party candidate Hillary Clinton will be at the inaugural
rites today and so will three ex-presidents George W. Bush, Bill
Clinton, and Jimmy Carter. The process of authority passing on to
the next set of leaders must continue unimpeded.
The world will be watching this continuing process of American
democracy. Many may share the concerns of the protesters but we
expect the inaugural rites to proceed as scheduled. We hope
President Trump will also listen to what the protesters are saying.
He may learn something from them.
 Manila Bulletin Editorial Article
Davos conference highlights world inequality
On the eve of the annual meeting of the worlds political, financial,
and business elites in Davos, Switzerland, this week, international
anti-poverty organization Oxfam warned against the growing gap
between the very rich and the poor of the world.
The worlds eight richest men, it said, now own as much wealth
as the 3.6 billion people who make up half of the worlds
population. It is obscene for so much wealth to be held in the
hands of so few men, Oxfam said. Inequality is trapping
hundreds of millions in poverty; it is fracturing our societies and
undermining democracy.
The result, Oxfam said, has been a worldwide shift to anti-
establishment views, highlighted by the British peoples decision
to leave the European Union and the election victory of United
States President Donald Trump.
The Davos conference officially the annual meeting of the World
Economic Forum has gathered many of the worlds leaders,
including British Prime Minister Theresa May, US Vice President
Joe Biden, and Chinese President Xi Jinping, along with some
3,000 international business, government, and other leaders from
over 100 countries.
 There will be debates and other discussions on such issues as
reform of capitalism, globalization, the refugee crisis in the Middle
East and Europe, and the continuing threat of global terrorism.
Tomorrow, January 20, all eyes are expected to turn to
Washington, DC, on the other side of the globe when President
Trump takes his oath of office and announces his plans for the
nation, many of which will be impacting on the rest of the world.
The growing sense of inequality in the world has also been felt in
our own country, which elected a president who stood for change
and is now moving mightily to carry out that pledge. We are part
of the global wave of disaffection that led to Brexit and President
Trump.
The Davos conference will not come up with any official
decision. But its participants are leaders in their own countries and
may become agents for change on their return from the
conference. Our own officials would do well to follow the
proceedings and possibly adopt some measures that have been
proposed, such as greater investments in public services and jobs,
more decent pay for workers, and more equitable taxes.
 Philippine Daily Inquirer Editorial Article
Strengthen, not abolish
Pending in the House of Representatives is a bill called Rightsizing
the National Government Act of 2017, a measure purportedly aimed
at streamlining the bureaucracy. In his recent State of the Nation
Address, President Duterte mentioned it as among his
administrations priority bills.
Trimming the fat off the bloated bureaucracy is a laudable effort,
but the bill appears to be treading into worrying territory with its
proposal to abolish a key agencythe Presidential Commission on
Good Government. Two powerful Cabinet membersSolicitor
General Jose Calida and Budget Secretary Benjamin Dioknoare
championing this move. Calida wants to merge the PCGGs
functions with his office, which he also wants detached from the
Department of Justice. Diokno, meanwhile, has tagged the PCGG
as irrelevant, adding: They dont do anything. What do they
do?
Its surprising that Diokno, the man in charge of the countrys
finances, had to ask that question. For starters, hes supposed to
know that the P10 billion the government has been mandated by
law to set aside as compensation for victims of human rights abuses
during Ferdinand Marcos martial rule came from a much bigger
amountP35 billionthat the PCGG remitted to the Bureau of
Treasury in 2004. That money, in turn, came from some $658
 million in Swiss deposits of the dictator Marcos and his family that
the PCGG successfully recovered after years of complex, drawn-out
litigation here and abroad. The Swiss Federal Court and the
Philippine Supreme Court would eventually come to the same
conclusionthat the assets were ill-gotten and of criminal
provenance, and deserved to be forfeited on behalf of the
Philippines.
Of the estimated $10 billion that the Marcoses stole, the PCGG has
reportedly recovered about $3.5 billion. Perhaps its not a good
enough baseline of success in Dioknos eyes that would justify the
PCGGs continued existencebut is that, on the other hand, work
to sneeze at? One need only to remember Imelda Marcos own
words, uttered in 1998, to appreciate the gargantuan task for anyone
chasing after the sprawling and shadowy kleptocracy that the
conjugal dictatorship had built: We practically own everything in
the Philippinesfrom electricity, telecommunications, airline,
banking, beer and tobacco, newspaper publishing, television
stations, shipping, oil and mining, hotels and beach resorts, down to
coconut milling, small farms, real estate and insurance, the former
first lady said.
The PCGGs efforts to seize those assets have been vexed at every
turn by the Marcoses dogged, well-funded campaign to oppose,
delay, or derail the cases against them. For instance, the $40-million
Arelma account opened in Panama by Marcos on Sept. 21, 1972, on
the very day he claimed to have imposed martial law in the country,
was declared by the Supreme Court in 2012 as part of the familys
ill-gotten wealtha decision it upheld in 2014. The funds were
forfeited by the Sandiganbayan in favor of the government as early
as 2009, but the dictators son and widow, Bongbong and Imelda
Marcos, typically filed suit in the high court to prevent the moneys
return to the people.
As of April 2016, according to PCGG records, the Marcoses are
actively litigating and are represented by their lawyers in 15 civil
cases in the Sandiganbayan and the Supreme Courta clear
illustration of the arduous work that remains to be done to recover
the bulk of the Marcos loot. The very nature of that staggering
plunder demands an officially deputized regiment of lawyers,
investigators and public officials invested in the idea that, no matter
how long it takes, the pillage of the public treasury demands the
elementary justice of its recovery and return to the people, and the
prosecution of the plunderers.
 Philippine Daily Inquirer Editorial Article
Speaking for the adversary
The Philippine News Agency, the government news wire service
run by the Presidential Communications Operations Office, made
an outrageous mistake over the weekend: It published a
commentary from Xinhua, the Chinese state-run news operation,
that criticized the arbitral ruling won by the Philippines against
China. After a belated storm surge of criticism, the opinion piece by
a Chinese commentator was taken down on Wednesday.
PCOO Secretary Martin Andanar then took PNA to task, issuing a
memo directing agency officials to explain in writing why they
should not be held liable for any administrative charges. He added:
We will take appropriate action against liable PNA officials and/or
staff if they are found to commit negligence in carrying out their
duties and responsibilities.
The negligence angle is based on the assumption that the posting of
the commentary was essentially an editing errora failure to catch,
and then remove, the anti-Philippine passages in the piece. Andanar
himself suggested as much: Most commentaries of Xinhua News
Agency reflect Chinas position on certain issues, he said. Thus,
all reposts from Xinhua and all other partner news agencies for that
matter should undergo scrutiny and must be subject to discernment
by PNA prior to reposting them.
 ADVERTISEMENT
This lack of due scrutiny, this failure of discernment, resulted in the
disturbing spectacle of an official Philippine government institution
allowing the government of another country, its adversary in an
important case in international law, to undermine the landmark legal
victory achieved by the Philippines.
The part of the commentary that proved most offensive to Filipinos
worried about Chinese aggression in the South China Sea was this
paragraph: More than one year after an ill-founded award at a
South China Sea arbitration unilaterally delivered by an ad hoc
tribunal in The Hague, the situation in the South China Sea has
stabilized and improved thanks to the wisdom and sincerity of
China and the parties concerned.
This is wrong on so many levels. The ruling, or award, was not in
fact ill-founded but very carefully considered; the case was
unilateral (China did not take part in the processthis is what the
commenter must have meant) only because the Chinese conducted a
long-term campaign, even though they were in fact signatories to
the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea which provided for
arbitration, to delegitimize the arbitral tribunal. The tribunal was
ad hoc in the sense that it was constituted specifically for the case
(because the rules required it), but it worked according to
established protocols and discharged the duty of the Permanent
Court of Arbitration. The situation in the South China Sea is not
stabilizedit has only reached a condition, with continuing
reclamation and construction and the increased presence of the
Chinese coast guard, that is favorable to the Chinese. The very
sincerity of China is disputed, including by diplomats from the
Association of Southeast Asian Nations; the wisdom of small
 countries entering into bilateral negotiations with the largest
economic and military power in the region is under question.
But does negligence in fact explain the publication of the offensive
commentary? A closer read reveals that the controversial passage
reflects the stated or implied policy of the Duterte administration to
the issue of Chinese expansionism in the South China Sea. As far as
we can tell, the administration has not yet called the very nature of
the ruling ill-founded. But everything else in that paragraph has
been announced or suggested by the President or either of his two
foreign secretaries. In fact, at the close of the Asean ministerial
meeting this week, Secretary Alan Peter Cayetano declared that the
Chinese had stopped their reclamation and construction projects in
the disputed areas. The evidence says otherwise.
The question then: Did the PNA website inadvertently speak for the
adversary in an ongoing dispute, or did it in fact, wittingly or
unwittingly, reflect official government policy?
 Philippine Daily Inquirer Editorial Article
The Split
The accusations leveled by Patricia Bautista against her husband
Andres Bautista, the chair of the Commission on Elections, are both
serious and sensational.
In particular, her impression that Bautista appeared to have
secured the services of DivinaLaw, [Dean Nilo Divinas] law firm,
in order to profit from his position in the Comelec is a matter of
genuine public concern. She has executed an affidavit, and offered
bank passbooks and other financial documents as proof.
Bautista has met the accusations head on, granting interview after
interview where he categorically denied his estranged wifes
allegations.
As for the financial documents, he said: I question the genuineness
of the documents. These [amounts involved] are small amounts but
they are reflected in my SALN [statement of assets, liabilities and
net worth]. And the taxes are paid for all of these.
And in fact the language his wife uses in her affidavit is deliberately
tentative, not categorical.
What made me highly suspicious is that Nilos law firm has been
handling, among others, government clients such as Baseco and
 UCPB, two government entities that Andy constantly dealt with
while he was the PCGG chair, she said in one instance.
She said it was her impression that Bautista received commission
from Nilo, while he was/is in active government service.
Surely, a private practitioner such as Nilo would not give
commission or some form of incentive to Andy if it wasnt for any
favor or service, she suggested. However, it appears that Andy
would get some sort of commission from Nilo for the clients that
his law firm handled before the Comelec as well as other private
people and institutions.
Her key words suspicious, impression, surely, appears
help paint a damning portrait, but without actually committing her
to any of these assertions.
The possibility that Bautista deliberately hid a substantial amount of
his wealth or received commissions as payment for official favors
should be treated with the seriousness it deserves; the allegations
must be investigated.
That he is a high official who can be removed only by impeachment
should not be a bar against any investigation, whether by the
Department of Justice or by congressional inquiries.
But the tentative language Patricia Bautista herself uses should be a
cautionary signal to the investigators; a lot of work needs to be
done, before even the basic evidence can be agreed upon.
The resolution Sen. Vicente Sotto III filed the other day, asking the
blue ribbon committee to conduct an inquiry into the allegations of
ill-gotten or illegally hidden wealth against Bautista, limited itself
to the direct implications of the accusations: Public officials and
 employees have an obligation to accomplish and submit
declarations under oath of, and the public has the right to know,
their assets, liabilities, net worth and financial and business
interests.
This sounds about right. As Sotto explained, This goes beyond a
domestic dispute. It is an allegation of corruption of epic
proportions that definitely concerns public interest given the
sensitive position in our democratic setup Chairman Bautista
occupies.
But in the House of Representatives, the sad descent of Rep. Harry
Roque from human rights advocate to ambulance-chasing lawyer-
politician continued. To the marital split tearing apart the Bautistas,
Roque brought the twin hammers of self-righteous indignation and
overheated speculation.
Roque, whose own party-list group has disowned him, filed a
resolution based on the assumption that the controversy raises
serious questions about the integrity of the May 2016 National
Elections wracked as it has been with allegations that the
same elections have been rigged to favor certain candidates for
national posts.
This is quite a jump from the allegations based on the impression
Patricia Bautista received, from the documents her husband
disputes, of an appearance of irregularity. Despite continuing
assertions by some interested parties that last years elections were
rigged, absolutely no proof has been given of the rigging of a
system that would necessarily implicate the victory of President
Duterte himself.
These allegations of epic proportions must be investigated, and
the evidence pursued wherever it leads but, despite Roques
hyperventilating, there is no showing that the very integrity of the
elections was compromised.

Philippine Daily Inquirer Editorial Article

Turnaround in Asean
At last. Departing from a string of weak statements that glossed
over or altogether avoided any mention of Chinas aggressive
activities in the South China Sea, the joint communiqu issued on
Sunday by the foreign ministers of the Association of Southeast
Asian Nations meeting in Manila was notable for addressing not
only Chinas seizure and reclamation of islands in the disputed
waters but also the militarization of the area.
We discussed extensively the matters relating to the South China
Sea and took note of the concerns expressed by some Ministers on
the land reclamations and activities in the area, which have eroded
trust and confidence, increased tensions and may undermine peace,
security and stability in the region, the statement read in part.
Further: We emphasized the importance of non-militarization and
self-restraint in the conduct of all activities by claimants and all
other states, including those mentioned in the DOC (Declaration on
the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea) that could further
complicate the situation and escalate tensions in the South China
Sea.
 For a while, it had looked like the 10-member regional bloc would
once again succumb to pressure from China through Cambodia,
its closest ally in the group to finesse its statement and avoid
language that could be seen as chiding Beijing. Although five Asean
member-nations Malaysia, Taiwan, Brunei, Vietnam and the
Philippines have claims on waters and islets in the South China
Sea, almost all of which China claims as its own on the basis of a
nine-dash map that the Permanent Court of Arbitration has declared
as without legal basis, reaching consensus on stronger language and
a united front has been a contentious process.
The Philippines, which is this years Asean chair and which had
won an important legal victory over China with the arbitral ruling,
itself chose to avoid reference to Chinas island reclamation or to
the ruling itself in the Asean Chairmans Statement released last
April, on the back of President Dutertes conciliatory policy toward
Beijing.
This time, the bloc failed to release its joint communiqu on
Saturday evening as scheduled, reportedly deadlocked on
essentially the same issue.
Vietnam, which has had clashes with China over fishing and
exploitation rights in its own claimed waters, was reported to have
wanted tougher wording to directly address the elephant in the
room, but Cambodia stood squarely against it. (In July 2012, with
Cambodia as chair, the meeting of foreign ministers was marked by
conflict and failed to produce a joint communiqu.)
The impasse threatened to produce another oblique statement
intended to somehow placate all parties even China, which is
 strictly not a party in the grouping, but whose economic and
military might figures heavily in the regions calculations.
But Vietnams position appeared to have prevailed. In an 11 oclock
turnaround, the foreign ministers finally hammered out a
communiqu that, for a change, unmistakably called Beijing out for
its island-grabbing, and the rapid transformation of these islands
into military outposts.
China has built seven islands so far in the disputed waters; three of
these are equipped with runways, surface-to-air missiles and radars,
according to a Reuters report.
The ministerial meeting also announced the adoption of a
negotiating framework that would advance a 2002 Declaration on
the Conduct of Parties in the South China Sea, an agreement that
has largely been ignored, especially by China.
Now Beijing appears to have rediscovered interest in the code,
pushing for talks on an outline for its implementationthough far
short of what Vietnam wants, which is to make the document
legally binding on all claimant-nations, including China.
Observers fear its a ploy for something else: to simply buy China
more time to solidify its grip on this vital area. Asean might want to
wise up to its giant neighbors long game.
 Philippine Daily Inquirer Editorial Article
Beginning to rebuild
That sturdier structures and not a tent city are being planned
for the families displaced by the conflict in Marawi indicates a
clear intent to begin the work of picking up the pieces. About time,
too: The fighting in the city has raged for more than two months,
after all.
Late in July, thousands of evacuees raised their plight to President
Duterte. Mr. President, please, let us end the war now, said
Maranao youth leader Omeihaya Sharief, speaking on behalf of the
displaced families.
In Iligan City, where most of the bakwit have been staying, a
movement called Dansalan Tano sa Kalilintad (Lets return to a
peaceful Marawi) has risen; it is urging the government to end the
conflict so the Maranao can begin to rebuild their shattered lives.
As the war continues, so do the hardships of the evacuees,
Sharief said. She said lack of food was a constant problem despite
the official pronouncements of authorities, leading to the
sickliness of children.
 At the evacuation centers, the bakwit have to endure crowding,
the heat during daytime and the cold at night from the [concrete]
floor where they sleep, she said. They are also tired of eating
canned sardines and cup noodles.
When the conflict began to take longer than expected to resolve,
the overflow of bakwit, particularly in tiny Iligan, needed to be
addressed.
The Department of Social Welfare and Development announced
that tents would be set up, one for each displaced family, to ensure
their privacy. But the plan for a tent city would eventually be
dropped in favor of semipermanent structures.
Such a structure will also make them comfortable because it will
be a house, said Marawi Mayor Majul Gandamra. Tents, he said,
will always remind them that they are evacuees.
The units are to be built in Barangay Sagonsongan, an 11-hectare
relocation site in Marawi. An initial 5,000 families have been
identified as beneficiaries.
The Armys 54th Engineering Brigade, the Department of Public
Works and Highways in Northern Mindanao, and the Marawi City
Engineers Office have started building model units, according to
Capt. Jo-ann Petinglay, spokesperson for Joint Task Force Marawi.
The units are estimated to take eight days to finish, with each one
capable of housing three families. To provide the evacuees a source
of income, many among them have been chosen to work on the
units.
Army engineers are now working onsite. Said Lt. Gen. Carlito
Galvez, Western Mindanao Command chief: Your soldiers will
risk their lives not only to make sure that Marawi City would be
free from terrorists, but also to speed up rehabilitation, so that
shelters would be ready at the soonest possible time.
 The idea of soldiers building shelters for displaced families
illustrates their civic function and presents them as men and
women in the service of the people, and not as oppressors, as
during Ferdinand Marcos martial rule.
The idea of soldiers as builders is an ancient one, proving that
those who can wield a sword can just as easily wield a spade. The
yearly war exercises between American and Filipino military
forces, for example, included the construction of school buildings
and service provisions in host towns.
It was the President himself who announced that the rebuilding of
Marawi would begin as soon as the city is cleared of the extremists
that laid siege to it. Before then he had signed Administrative
Order No. 3, which formed the multiagency Task Force Bangon
Marawi headed by Defense Secretary Delfin Lorenzana. The
award-winning architect Felino Palafox Jr. has committed himself
and his firm to helping out in the reconstruction effort. And a
number of foreign governments have expressed intent to provide
assistance.
These are mere words, of course. It is hoped that the rehabilitation
effort will begin in earnest as each day brings another day of
despair for the homeless Maranao. Said Sharief: Our hearts broke
seeing on television the daily destruction wrought to our beloved
Marawi due to the continued fighting.
But to shelter the homeless is one thing. To heal and comfort the
grieving and desolate is quite another.
 Philippine Daily Inquirer Editorial Article
'10 days not enough to answer Marcos
election protest'
Lawyer Romulo Macalintal says former senator Ferdinand Marcos
Jr's election protest against Vice President Leni Robredo is 'the
longest ever filed in the country.

MANILA, Philippines Veteran election lawyer Romulo

Macalintal said 10 days would not be enough to answer the
election protest filed by former senator Ferdinand "Bongbong"
Marcos Jr against Vice President Leni Robredo, since it is "the
longest election protest ever filed" in the country.

In a statement on Sunday, July 10, Macalintal said the

"unprecedented" protest of the defeated vice presidential candidate
has 1,000 pages, plus more than 20,000 documents in its annexes.

"Robredo and her lawyers might find it difficult or be pressed for

time to answer said protest since Presidential Electoral Tribunal
rules only give Robredo 10 days from receipt of PET order to
 answer said protest," said Macalintal, who had represented
Robredo in Congress' canvassing of votes.

The lawyer added that the Supreme Court, acting as the PET, could
have postponed action on the election protest because of its length.

The PET will instead take it up again in an en banc session on

Tuesday, July 12.

"For sure, it will take more time for the 15-member PET to study
each and every page of the 1,000-page protest and the 20,000
annexes before it could take appropriate action," said Macalintal.

He also said that Marcos' call for the declaration of a failure of

elections in several provinces is not within the PET's jurisdiction,
but under the "exclusive jurisdiction of the Comelec en banc."

"It is imperative for the PET to first make a judicial determination

if Marcos' protest is sufficient in substance or if he is really asking
for a recount or a declaration of failure of election," Macalintal
added.

Marcos had filed the protest on June 29, the eve of Robredo's oath-
taking. He lost to Robredo in the May elections by a very slim
margin of just 263,473 votes.

His lawyer, George Garcia, said they are seeking a recount in 27

provinces and cities covering 36,000 precincts. They also want the
results in Basilan, Maguindanao, and Lanao del Sur nullified.

Marcos had said they have both documentary and testimonial

evidence to prove there was poll fraud.
 Rappler Editorial Article
Why Leni Robredo should file a counter-
protest vs Marcos Jr
Election protest cases rise and fall on the result of the recount. This
is founded on the core principle in election law that the ballots
once their authenticity and integrity are established are the
primary and best evidence of the intention of the voters.

Following all of these parameters, we can now examine the

allegations in Marcos protest.

First, compliance of the 2016 AES with the minimum mandatory

requirements of RA 8436 and RA 9369, and the effect of the
tampering of the unofficial Transparency Server, are issues that
may not be tried in an election protest case, unless Marcos proves
that such allegations actually affected the final result.

Moreover, the point of the protest recount is precisely to disregard

the result yielded by the questioned AES, and revert to manual
counting of the physical ballots to determine the real winner.
It can be argued that, in filing the election protest Mr Marcos
waives his objections over those issues. It must be noted that effect
of an election protest as also explicitly prayed for by Mr. Marcos
is for him to be declared and proclaimed as the winner of the
2016 vice presidential election. How can one possibly pray to be
proclaimed as the winner of an election, which at the same time
one claims to be null and void? Those are two irreconcilable and
inconsistent positions that technically cancel each other.

Second, as regards the issue of undervotes, Marcos cannot claim

that all 3 million as his without first proving that they were indeed
cast in his favor and not mere abstentions. It must be recalled that
Mar Roxas protest in 2010 also hinged on this issue, which he
ultimately failed to prove. But then, again, this is the very purpose
of the recount.

The only tenable grounds among those raised by Marcos is the

allegation of election fraud in 22 provinces and 5 cities, which he
prayed to be recounted. In this case, all of the ballot boxes from
these areas will have to be shipped to the recount locations as
maybe designated by the PET. As a cost-saving measure, the
parties may also request for the printing of the ballot images before
the Comelec Main Office in Manila and use the same for the
recount in lieu of the actual ballots.

As regards the prayer for the annulment of election results in

Basilan, Maguindanao, and Lanao del Sur, it is quite strange to see
it prayed in an election protest. A prayer for a wholesale annulment
of election results is technically a prayer for the declaration
of failure of elections under Section 6 of the Omnibus Election
Code. However, this, following a long line of cases, is within the
exclusive jurisdiction of the Commission on Elections en banc, and
not of the PET.

The PET has summoned Vice President (VP) Leni Robredo to

answer this election protest filed by Marcos. The receipt of this
summon, including the official copy of the protest petition, marks
the beginning of the 10-day period within which the VPs camp
can file her answer to the petition.

While 10 days is reasonably sufficient for the VP to submit her

admissions, denials and affirmative defences, it becomes
problematic should she choose to file a counter-
protest.(READ: '10 days not enough to answer Marcos protest')

A counter-protest is essentially an electoral protest, but this time

filed by the protestee or the winning candidate, either to attack the
results of the elections in places where she believed she should
have gotten more votes, or to question the votes garnered by the
protestant.

Under PET rules, the VP is given only 10 days to file a counter-

protest, unlike the original protestant who had 30 days.

Like the protestant, the protestee/counter-protestant also has to pay

the P100,000 filing fee and the cash deposit amounting to P500 for
each established precinct. This could present a serious problem to
the Robredo, who only has declared a net worth of P8 million.

While she is not compelled to file a counter-protest, she is not in a

position not to do so. The suggestion of some political observers
that Robredo should just sit back and watch would have
been possible if she enjoyed a wide lead over the second placer,
but not when her lead over Marcos is dangerously close only
more than 263,000.

To offset any potential votes that Marcos will gain in the recount, it
is both strategic and necessary for the VP to take a counter-
offensive and file a counter-protest herself. A counter-protest will
allow her to make the necessary claims on her unaccounted votes
and also attack the votes cast in favor of Marcos.

A counter-protest, however, is as expensive as filing a protest. The

cash deposit of P500 for each established precinct (which could
translate to millions depending on the scope of the protest) only
covers the transportation of the ballot boxes and election
paraphernalia to the PET and to the compensation of the members
of the revision committees.

Outside of this, the VP will have to pay for lawyers fees, expense
in evidence gathering, daily meals, and fees of recount revisors and
watchers, and other miscellaneous expenses.